Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election

Predictions three weeks before the vote

The table keeps on getting updated which is alright but for ref we really should have Three weeks table check unchanged and may the last week before voting table just like 2015.

The first-past-the-post system used in UK general elections means that the number of seats won is not closely related to vote share. Thus, several approaches arre used to convert polling data and other information into seat predictions. The table below lists some of the predictions.

Parties		Election Forecast as of 15 May 2017	Electoral Calculus as of 15 May 2017	Lord Ashcroft as of 12 May 2017	Elections Etc as of 12 May 2017
bgcolor="Template:Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color" |	Conservatives	414	409	406-415	391
bgcolor="Template:Labour Party (UK)/meta/color" |	Labour Party	155	167	152-164	170
bgcolor="Template:Scottish National Party/meta/color" |	SNP	53	46	45-48	49
bgcolor="Template:Liberal Democrats (UK)/meta/color" |	Liberal Democrats	6	7	8-14	13
bgcolor="Template:Plaid Cymru/meta/color" |	Plaid Cymru	2	3	4-5	3
bgcolor="Template:Green Party of England and Wales/meta/color" |	Green Party	1	0	1	1
bgcolor="Template:UK Independence Party/meta/color" |	UKIP	0	0	0	0
bgcolor="Template:Independent (politician)/meta/color" |	Others	1	18	19	N/A
Overall result (probability)		Conservative majority (100%)	Conservative majority (83%)	Conservative majority	Conservative majority (91%)

Should the Electoral Calculus be included, given that the tool is inherently inaccurate in forecasting this election as its predictions use the results of 2015 as a base? BitterGiant (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Do reliable sources consider it as a valid tool? If so, we should include it. Bondegezou (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

That's a bit of a strange criticism of EC - how is it "inherently inaccurate"? All the models use the 2015 result as a baseline in some way.. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

References

UK Regional result articles

I would like to propose on top of the four national page articles which no one has bothered to do and been reverted at my every attend I would like to articles for each of the twelve regional areas of the UK, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish articles would retrospectively be classed as part of the regional articles however I propose we create nine new regional article pages for the English regions and create graphics for each of these articles (i.e.Separate regional maps) as one page to cover all 650 constituencies is simply too big we need to break the results down into manageable chucks and the regional option as opposed to results county which was the model for the 2005 and 2010 results is better as the constituencies have to be drawn up to respect the regional broundries. In essence we would need 12 regional maps creating as well has the articles themselves. With the model we would be able to list all the seats within that region and which party gained or lost each individual seat. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:490E:DCE:5A6:5AB0 (talk) 12:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC))

I don't see the need myself. What would one of these regional articles contain? Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ankit Love

Can anyone give an explanation of why this person should be regarded as a "high profile" candidate worthy of mention (together with his family)? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

The answer is quite simple. For the fight against Islamic Terrorism. Judging by your question here and your speedy capacity to delete information, I believe you didn't actually read the sources, conduct a google search or follow inlink to the Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party of India founded by the candidate Ankit Love, The Maharaja of Kashmir's parents Bhim Singh and Jay Mala in 1982. In the current climate of these elections here plagued by Islamic terrorism, the fact that Ankit Love's parent are fighting against radical Islamists and were doing so when the CIA, MI6, Mossad were funding them creating the jihadi insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir through Pakistan's ISI in Operation Cyclone, is rather important I believe. It is of historical source significance as well as news. The fact that this person is in the UK on a ballot and is featured in national news in both India and the UK, as a Mayor of London candidate, in by-elections and then presently as a Prime Minister of India candidate, who founded the One Love Party here, while making news calming the sovereign title of the Maharaja of terror-torn Jammu and Kashmir which is the world's most militarized zone, potentially an apocalyptic nuclear war that could destroy the Earth's ozone layer, called the "most dangerous place in the world," by Bill Clinton yet lamented as the "conflict the world has chosen to ignore" by Salman Rushdie, where the British SAS were to first sent to search for Osama Bin Laden post 9/11, could all be part of the puzzle in solving how the Islamic terrorist problem grew to this scale in the first place. Perhaps this information could even offer remedy. This is of rather high-profile significance by anyone's account, I would certainly say. Were you aware of this prior to making snap judgements to delete sourced content? It's most concerning for a democracy that persons feeling they know better or are far better informed and falsely believing they hold some erroneous consensus which may in fact be collective bias from dependence on the same oligopolistic media root do not wish to even investigate new challenging information either. This is most unsettling for a liberal society and the security of our citizens in the current climate. This information may in fact touch at the core of how our media has been operating for decades in relation to mis prioritising, erroneously vilifying and misinforming us of the key factors and individuals which created the rise in Islamic terrorism. Which of-course is what these snap decisions to delete Ankit Love, The Maharaja of Kashmir were based on. Perhaps including the clearly high-profile candidate Ankit Love, The Maharaja of Kashmir in the high-profile candidate section during this general election may contribute towards emancipating us and unveiling a fundamental bias we have developed by being dependent on a media which failed to deliver us priority information, and which has now gravely and evidently compromised the security and lives of our citizens. ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^($Talk$) 20:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

All very interesting, but irrelevant. I'm happy to accept that this is a reliable source that briefly mentions Love - but that is not enough. If you can find other reliable, neutral, published sources that discuss Love's candidacy in this election, editors will give the matter serious consideration. Until then, we have no evidence that, in this election, he is anything like a "clearly high-profile" candidate. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Here is a further source I found: Homeless MP candidate would “shut down” Saudi, Qatari and Brunei embassies in Westminster. So you do not feel historic sources focused on Islamic terrorism are not important for this election in the current climate here? Are not elections of historic significance? Thus is not profile something that is carried forward in such regard? Or must profile be only what is reported within the given start and end dates of an election? Are you certain you are applying such interpretation of Wikipedia policy evenly across all candidates listed as high-profile, to ensure no discrimination is present? Further how are you certain the sources you are presently dependent on have been neutral in relation to informing us about Islamic terrorism as opposed to commercial interests? Is not being listed on the ballot claiming the title The Maahraja of Kashmir, both notable and high-profile enough? Is there not a political danger in the stance you are taking, which could be unwittingly adding to the power of the Islamic terrorists by denying the public information about a candidate who's family has been at war with the Islamic terrorists for decades? What if Ankit Love, The Maharaja of Kashmir is already a high-profile candidate in the fullest consideration of Wikipedia protocol based on his political stories for an entire year in the lead up to this election? Is there no possibility of this already when all previous sources are examined neutrally that they may hold continued context in the current election? Have you already diligently conducted such effort prior to passing judgement on a political candidate fighting against Islamic terrorism? What if Love's information may have prevented a future terrorist attack or even a potential nuclear war? Are you certain that in the given historic context concerning Islamic terror there maybe no danger in the stance you are taking concerning public security, if there is even a shadow of a doubt that Love is in fact already high-profile with all his national news and television coverage? Is this a risk worth taking when the information potentially concerns the security of our people against Islamic terrorists in the given climate? Would it not better to air on the side of caution in this regard for all with the attacks that have been happening? What could be gained and what could be lost withholding this information about a political candidate in a general election, especially if the consensus that sparked this debate or your interpretation of Wikipedia policy might be potentially erroneous? ${\mathfrak {StephenNightingale}}$ ^($Talk$) 21:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not a high-profile or even notable candidate at all. In the London mayoral election, 2016, he got 0.2% of the vote. In the Tooting by-election, 2016, he got 0.1%; in Batley and Spen, 0.2%; and again 0.2% in Richmond Park. People in the "High-profile candidates" section have been/are either widely known party MPs, former/current ministers or party leaders or MPs who have become widely known recently as a result of controversies. This Love guy doesn't come anything close to that, so that one person things he's notable and writes entire walls of text for his inclusion doesn't make him high-profile still. Adding him would be WP:UNDUE. Impru20 (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ankit Love is unambiguously not a high profile candidate: he's never saved a deposit never mind held public office, and this isn't likely to change, no matter how persistent his supporters are in posting ludicrous claims in his favour on Wikipedia. Dtellett (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Ankit Love is a curiosity in the grand tradition of people ending rock bottom last on numerous ballot papers. He is not notable. He deserves no place in this article suggesting he has any notability, at all. His current status is as multiple deposit losing failure, and that's it. doktorb _words^deeds 03:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

This section is supposed to be for former Cabinet ministers, leaders of the major parties and so on. For someone whose Wikipedia article was deleted to be considered "high profile" is ludicrous.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:20, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Stephen Nightingale is an Ankit-promoting SPA. Remove all reference to him, and help tidy up the hagiography on One Love Party. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong Leader

Nigel Farage is listed as the UKIP leader, when in fact it's Paul Nuttall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.11.65 (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's been fixed. This is Paul (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong results

Give 5% more to the conservatives, and 5% less to LibDems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.219.232 (talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

PP

Please change 'pp' to '%' in the infobox to keep in line with other elections. 49.200.244.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also the 318 figure doesn't include the speaker. Maybe you have not been following the media outlets. Seats: Con 318 Lab 261 Snp 35 Lib 12 Dup 10 Sin 7 Pdc 4 Grn 1 Spkr 1 Undeclared 1 (in London) Total 650 49.200.244.176 (talk)

Plaid Cymru in main header?

Huffpost reports them at 4 seats (& google confirms). As a non-controversial party, it is very probable there will be coalition negotiations between the Conservatives and Sinn Féin as well as Cymru & DUP 67.86.28.255 (talk) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Images

It's noticeable that the photographs of all the leaders except Jeremy Corbyn are formal portraits. Is this because there isn't such an image of Corbyn? Deb (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In the two seconds since I wrote this, Gerry Adams has appeared, also with his mouth open. Deb (talk) 09:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe the image of Jeremy Corbyn is from the manifesto launch at this election. It's the one in use on his article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Gerry Adams as Sinn Fein leader in the northen irish section of the election?

Wouldnt it be more appropriate to have the leader of sinn fein in northen ireland rather then gerry adams?

He's President of the party, so it's appropriate. It's similar for other parties; e.g. the leader of the SNP is Nicola Sturgeon, despite the fact that she sits in Holyrood, not Westminster. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Has the final seat been declared?

The Conservatives should have 318 seats instead of 317, according to Google:

Conservatives: 318

Labour: 261

SNP: 35

Lib-Dems: 12

DUP: 10

SF: 7

PC: 4

Green: 1

Speaker: 1

Independent: 1

The total is 650 here. If the Conservatives have 317, who won the missing seat?

86.161.53.118 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I think maybe some sources are counting the speaker as the 318th Tory instead of as the speaker. Bearing in mind there is one seat (Kensington) that is yet to declare.[1]  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Tories currently have 317 declared seats, not counting Bercow's since he's no longer a member of the party and was standing as "Speaker seeking re-election". Kensington hasn't yet declared, but is a safe Tory seat, which means the Conservatives will end up with 318. Aridd (talk) 11:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Kensington is not actually safe in this election, hence why it's taking so long to declare. There are suggestions it's gone to Labour, although nothing is confirmed yet.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The indications are that Kensington has been taken by Labour (another shock result among several). The latest recount has been delayed until 18:00 on Friday (the counters were exhausted and falling asleep), so the official result will be declared at some point after that. Good point about the Speaker's seat - that and the absentee Sinn Fein seats often complicates calculations relating to the 326 figure (though 326 is invariably used by most media sources). Carcharoth (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Lots of sources give the 326 figure, while also recognising that it's not really 326 because of the Speaker and Sinn Fein's abstentionism. So I think we can leave the infobox saying 326 and discuss complications in the text. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Theresa May has remained PM

Theresa May has remained PM under a minority Con/Tory Government. Please just update this now (rather than you Labour supporters here still holding out the last hope that Jeremy Corbyn might still be able to form a rival Government of his own with a "Progressive Alliance" with amongst others Sinn Féin)! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

the tories will win 317 seats if kensington goes labour as rumoured that is 317+10 dup seats 327 seats when 326 is needed for a majority i would say its not a done deal she can command the house of commons on such a majority all it would take is one tory mp to vote against her.

Not true. Total is 650. Subtract the absent 7 Sinn Fein and the Speaker to get 642. That would divide 327 vs 315. To lose a vote, you would have to have either have 13 abstentions reducing the 327 down to 314 (vs 315), or 7 MPs switching sides to produce 320 vs 322. It is very difficult to work with a small majority like that, but not impossible. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Close, but not true. The total number is actually 650-7-1-2=640, bearing in mind that Labour last got (and will still be expected to get) to nominate 2 Deputy Speakers...and the idea of Sinn Féin AND the SNP joining forces TOGETHER with Labour...only speaks volumes about the level of political illiteracy of the under-25/35 here in England and Wales! Folk in Scotland (not even amongst the SNP nationalist circles) obviously DIDN'T buy the story being put out that Jeremy Corbyn tried to work for peace in NI instead of being part of one of the belligerents, albeit as an unarmed participant! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Erm you seem to have went on an unnecessary political biased rant which isn't really warranted for the talk pages of Wikipedia. Sinn Fein will not work with Labour anyway. Sylvia Hermon hasn't been included in your stats anyway, and she'd be likely to vote with the government, given us an effective majority of 16 (327-311) or 18 (328-310) depending on who wins Kensington and Chelsea.

Cite error

Footnote 3 in the infobox is giving a "cite error: The named reference adamsseat was invoked but never defined". I've looked at the source code but I can't see what's wrong. Can somebody that understands "refn" fix it, please? 95.44.50.222 (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Ah! it had already been fixed when I clicked on "view source". Blink and you miss it. 95.44.50.222 (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Labour/Tory vote share 80%

There's been a lot of talk about the squeezing of the smaller parties and how Labour and the Conservatives combined vote share will exceed 80% for the first time in decades. I think this is notable and should be added. How long before the percentages are confirmed?--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree: this seems notable and has been discussed by RS. There is currently one outstanding constituency result in Kensington: the third re-count begins at 6pm (UK time), so we should know exact numbers by this evening. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)