Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom

Pay and Expenses

shouldn't something be included on pay and expenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Length of terms

The article states that a governments term cannot last longer than 5 years. Im sure my politics lecturer said that there is in fact no limit to how long a government may last considering the lack of a written constitution. Governments do generally dissolve after 5 years due to tradition dictating so and public pressure if a government was to last too long, but that there is in fact on written legislation which forces the government to end after 5 years and states that it would be illegal if it continued past 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.238.141 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is 5 years Under the Septennial Act 1715, as amended by Section 7 of the Parliament Act 1911, five years is fixed as the maximum duration for a Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02923.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.2.123 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While both statements are actually true, Her Majesty however would more than likely prevent a law giving a 'long term' government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinomatt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

A bit of questionable etymology in the main House of Commons article as well as Canadian House of Commons has gone uncited for a few months. See the talk pages for those articles. Perhaps someone who watches this article can shed some light on the question? PubliusFL (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am finding it a little difficult to track down a definitive source, but as I understand it the name "Commons" derives from the Norman French "Communes". There is still some evidence for this today in the use of antiquated Norman French in some formal duties of the Parliament (such as use of the phrases Soit baillé aux Communes and A ceste Bille les Communes sont assentus).[1] However I do not feel that this evidence is strong enough for a reliable etymology. I will see what else I can dig out in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

John Lewis List

I had a look at the above article, and it seems to be 'orphaned'. Can someone with more time/expertise than me figure out an appropriate way to link to it from this page please?80.41.230.202 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved Sceptre ^(talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, this article was moved from British House of Commons to House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Frankly, unless we're going to split the article up (which I see little reason to do) the present name is a bit of a howler. Clearly, House of Commons needs to be qualified, as there have been several others, but this article (rightly, it seems to me) covers the whole history of the Westminster House of Commons as a unified whole, and most of that history was during the periods of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Great Britain, long before there was a United Kingdom. The greatest unifying strand I see through nearly seven hundred years is that the seat of the House has stayed at Westminster, even if it has sometimes met elsewhere. My suggestion is a move to House of Commons (Westminster) House of Commons, Westminster, but of course we need an open discussion on any possible names. Xn4 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• It should probably be moved back to British House of Commons for now; there was consensus against moving it when it was discussed. But that is a proceedural point.
• I don't see much wrong with House of Commons of the United Kingdom; that is what it now is, and things which have changed name through time, like Princeton University or Istanbul, usually have a main article under their present name.
• I do dislike parenthetical disambiguation when it can be avoided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the above, and I should certainly prefer British House of Commons to the present name, but if it's agreed that that would be better than House of Commons of the United Kingdom, I wonder how other users feel about House of Commons, Westminster? That avoids Septentrionalis's objection to parentheses, has the advantage of being a name actually in use, and also doesn't jar with the long medieval, Tudor and Stuart periods. Xn4 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I would see it left at House of Commons of the United Kingdom. British House of Commons excludes Northern Ireland, whilst both of these names are intended to fall under the Istanbul logic outlined above - rst20xx (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. "House of Commons, Westminster" makes it sound like a geographical rather than a political entity, and will reinforce the erroneous idea that the Palace of Westminster _is_ "The Houses of Parliament", rather than the building in which they meet. The current title may be anachronistic, but it's not actively inaccurate. If the move is supported, I would prefer the original suggestion (House of Commons (Westminster)), or possibly Westminster House of Commons, rather than the form with the comma. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Military coup

"Pride's Purge was indeed the only military coup in English history." This needs a citation with the expert making the claim in the text, because it can be argued that there have been at least two others:

• Oliver Cromwell's clearance of the Rump Parliament on 20 April 1653 was also a military coup.
• On 13 October 1659 the New Model Army in London under the command of John Lambert excluded the Rump from Parliament by locking the doors to the Palace of Westminster and stationing armed guards outside (see Rump Parliament#End of the Rump Parliament).

Both of these events involved the forcible closure of a Parliament by soldiers, with soldiers appointing an alternative government. --PBS (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like the lack of a picture of the door is a glaring oversight in this article. Take a page out of the Australian article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:House_of_Reps_Doorway.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.141 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

New file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-1941

The article mentions the "Post-1941 chamber" being used in two films and mentioned in a Robin Williams stand-up sketch. I presume this means a real chamber located in a building somewhere that was used by the Commons post-1941 (until 1950?) because of the London Blitz, but the article mentions nothing about this. And why was this chamber in particular, rather than the actual one, referred to in the stand-up sketch (or was it a photo of it)?--86.142.75.240 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Sarum

I see two conflicting numbers for the number of voters in Old Sarum in this article it says:

The most notorious of these "rotten boroughs" were Old Sarum, which had only six voters for two MPs

While on the Old Sarum article it says:

In 1831 it had eleven voters, all of whom were landowners who lived elsewhere.

So, which is right? Youknowyouloveit (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour

Why is the infobox coloured green? Shouldn't it be a British colour? 24.11.127.26 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the colour traditionally associated with the House is green, hence benches are green, covers of hansard green etc. The Lords incidentally are associated with the colur red. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting at 1707

Ground Zero and I have been thinking that it would be a good idea to have a separate article for the pre-1707 House of Commons. As Ground Zero points out, we have a series of articles for the Parliament of England, Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of the United Kingdom. I have also commented that the title of this article (which is fine from 1707 onwards) can be misleading when linked to articles which are to do with the Parliament of England and its members. Sooner or later, this article will become too large for a single page, in any event. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I think we need three articles:
  • House of Commons of England (pre-1707),
  • House of Commons of Great Britain (1707-18018), and
  • House of Commons of the United Kingdom (post-18018). Ground Zero | t 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why 1808 and not 1801? Road Wizard (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. Sorry. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections if you don't mind doing the work, but out of curiosity why split at 1801 (addition of Ireland) and avoid splitting at 1922 (formation of the Irish Free State)? Road Wizard (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention: both before and after, the House of Commons would be the "House of Commons of the United Kingdom", and because it would follow the model of the Parliament articles. Moonraker2 has offered to help, and any further assistance in fixing the links would be appreciated. Ground Zero | t 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to help with the work, including directing links from other articles, which would take some time. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Split completed

We now have new articles for:

• House of Commons of England (pre-1707),
• House of Commons of Great Britain (1707-1801).

Both articles need some cleaning up, and particularly the second one need expansion. Also, help would be greatly appreciated in checking the links to House of Commons of the United Kingdom to change them where appropriate to direct the reader tot he correct article. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good split BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good split. I'll see what I can do to help, and I'll also do some work on the links today. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed quite a few of the problem links. Interesting how splitting this article showed up how little we had on House of Commons of Great Britain. I've done some work on that, but it's only a beginning. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your changes are a big improvement. Thanks and keep up the great work! Ground Zero | t 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

number of MPs

The article says there are 650 MPs but if you add up the numbers for England (529), Wales (40), Scotland (59) and Northern Ireland (18) you get only 646 MPs . So, are there only 646 or where do the other 4 MPs come from? Martinwilke1980 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There were 646 for the previous parliament, its been increased as of the election. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seating diagrams from Commons

divided areas and without legend

Please note I have uploaded this latest version of the seating diagram File:Election2010Parliament.png to Commons as File:Election2010Parliament divided.png. This earlier version with more space between the main parties was already uploaded as Commons:File:Election2010Parliament.png. No change should be evident on the article page.

I did this to provide a choice of versions to other Wikimedia projects. See Commons:United Kingdom general election, 2010.

I also feel it would be useful to have yet more versions, but each one with its own file name to avoid confusion and unnecessary reverting, and also preferably on Commons. -84user (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be producing such diagrams until we know what the government will look like. This version implies a Con-Lib coalition; some of the others imply a Con minority government. Plus, it should be SVG rather than PNG. Wereon (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in 2005, a diagram was created immediately, although it was only a placeholder diagram. I decided that as all of the votes are in, apart from Thirsk and Malton, that a diagram, similar to those of previous elections could then be used. The original, that I created, demonstrated things in the more traditional way. was the original. I was wandering on opinion, over which is more appropriate. The traditional, House of Commons layout or the box method of Anthony717. It is only a png for now, but I am in the process of making a parliament style layout in svg - it is very tedious. 95jb14 Talk, Founder of WikiProject Latin. 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

How do you feel in replacing the existing diagram with this one? 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dove (talk • contribs)

The House of Commons doesn't sit in an amphitheatre; they sit in a linear chamber with the government on one side and the opposition on the other. As such it makes no sense to set them out in a semicircular diagram. Happy‑melon 10:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the Commons isn't a semi-circle. But this is a very attractive diagram and useful like a pie-chart. And it's not that intrusive. (My two cents anyway) Iota (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical question about parliament

I wonder can someone knowledgeable clear something up for me? The House of Commons that was just elected has met and chosen the Speaker on 18 May, members began being sworn in on 19 May and today, on 25 May, is the State Opening of Parliament.

• So on what date was parliament reconvened: the 18th or the 25th?
• And how can the Commons have elected a Speaker when its members had no yet taken the Oath of Allegiance and therefore hadn't taken up their seats?

Iota (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) 18th (2) The law allows for members to elect a speaker before taking the Oath. This is the only business they may consider before doing so. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Crowned Portcullis.svg

The image File:Crowned Portcullis.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacant Seats

A vacant seat should be added for Inverclyde until the by-election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.204.141 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Property requirements

Since when have there been no more property requirements? And since when have all women been allowed to vote? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean property requirements to vote, or property requirements to be an MP? As for women, they were placed on an equal footing with men by the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

For voting, but requirements to be an MP would be interesting, too. When talking about the progress it seems to be important to mention this date. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Title - "the Honourable Commons .. assembled"

This edit restored a recently removed claim about what the full title of the place is. However, the reference being relied on for this is a guide to petitions, which simply says that lengthy construction is the form of address to be used when petitioning (and the "traditional" one at that, with a modern alternative given). That's not the same thing as full title, although a similar construction (without "the Honourable") does seem to be also used when the House addresses the queen. I know this is a little pedantic, but we are in the realm of the arcane and it should be correct one way or the other. Without a source that explicitly asserts this is the correct, formal title of the institution, I'm not sure we should be asserting that it is. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we have someone reverting it back in again, while ignoring this talk page section, and marking their edit as "minor". Please address the issue and the problem - a formal, archaic reference and mode of address is not the same thing as a formal title or name. And one or two cited apparent examples of use of said mode of address is not evidence of anything. N-HH talk/edits 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it should not be up to me to "disprove" the status of this phrase, I have done some more digging around. It does not appear to be used other than in the context of petitions to the Commons - a minor aspect of the House's business and one where it is, as noted, in any event only one alternative form of address. It is not used at all by MPs, in the chamber, in bills, rulebooks or other official documents, or on parliament's website - outside the context of petitions - when referring to or describing the House of Commons. It is not noted as a formal, official name in any academic history or study of Parliament, at least any available through Google Books. To the extent that it appears on one or two random websites, it is likely that people have picked up on it because of its prominence on this very page - all the more reason that we get it right. If someone can present serious evidence for the phrase, fine. Without that, it really should not be this complicated. It's ridiculous that this has seen one party edit-warring without clear evidence or engagement and at the same time the need for another, ie me, to have to offer this kind of one-sided (p)rebuttal posting on a talk-page. N-HH talk/edits 11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Move from "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" to "House of Commons (United Kingdom)"

I propose to revert this move from two reasons:

1. The name of this prominent article has been discussed on several occasions, and on the last one, the "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" was selected by those involved in the discussion. This move was undertaken with no discussion, and with no explanation provided. It appears to be the personal preference of one user over that of the community.
2. "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" is a phrase that can be correctly linked in an article without piping. The link "House of Commons (United Kingdom)" will always have to be piped to avoid awkward sentence structure.

Ground Zero | t 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think I prefer the new title as it's the more usual actual name but with the parenthetical note to distinguish it from others (there's a wider debate about primary topic and possibly some wider tidying up needed - currently we have the generic House of Commons page, as well as a disambiguation page, which may not be the best way to deal with this. The only two real contenders for primary topic are this page and the modern Canadian Commons, surely). That said, the points above are fair, plus the user who moved it seems to be sweeping through hundreds of parliament/assembly pages making moves without any proposals or discussion. I'd be fine with reverting in the absence of agreement. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Expenses scandal

I don't think this minutia has any place in this article. It was really just a relatively minor thing blow up by the media. There are no other "scandals" or similar events in the article. The scandal entry was added right in the middle of it happening. It seems to have little merit in the article today. I propose that it is removed. Alternatively, I propose that every semi-significant scandal of the last 100 years be added.

Adamathefrog (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that the issue as a whole was blown up by the media (or "extensively covered" if one prefers that formulation) counts for something in itself. There's only the briefest mention at the moment, in the history section, which to me seems to be worth retaining and even to be, if anything, a little perfunctory – even regardless of any media hype, it is part of the recorded history of the place after all and was seen to reflect on the institution. What I find more undue is the tendency there has been to add trivial details of their personal expenses claims to several individual MP pages, even those who were not found to have done anything properly wrong, eg here – where there's even a dedicated sub-section for his purchase of light bulbs – and here. N-HH talk/edits 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)