Talk:2019 United Kingdom general election

Terminology

By convention UK General Elections are referred to by the year they occur. Numbers for Elections and elected assemblies are more of an American phenomena, I've never heard of the term being used in the United Kingdom? Would "Next United Kingdom General Election" be more appropriate?2.29.51.48 (talk) 03:06, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

At the moment, the election in 2 weeks is the next election, so this has to be something else. Once we've had the current election, then, yes, I would support this becoming "Next...". Bondegezou (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fair point, I'm always a little on edge with creeping Americanisation, Cheers :) 2.29.51.48 (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Voting eligibility

At present, the third bullet point of the 'Voting eligibility' section states 'a British citizen, a Commonwealth citizen (with leave to remain or not requiring it) or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland,'.

I intend to change this to 'a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen', which reflects the wording on the Gov.uk webpage which is referenced).

There is a distinction between eligibility to register to vote (which is covered by Section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983) and eligibility to vote (covered by Section 1 of the same Act).

According to Section 4(1) of the Act, where a person wishes to be 'registered in the register of parliamentary electors', he/she must, at the time of the application, be a 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland'. A 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen' is defined in Section 4(6) of the Act as a person who has leave or does not require leave to enter or remain in the UK.

In contrast, according to Section 1 of the Act, 'A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election in any constituency if on the date of the poll he ... is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland'. There is no reference to being a 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen'.

Therefore, the eligibility to register to vote and the eligibility to vote in a general election differ slightly. When a Commonwealth citizen registers to vote, he/she must be a qualifying Commonwealth citizen with leave to enter/remain in the UK (or not require such leave). On polling day, a Commonwealth citizen whose name appears on the electoral roll is entitled to vote - it is irrelevant if he/she has leave to enter/remain in the UK (or does not require such leave). Bonus bon (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

The Hung (hanged?) parlaiment

Considering that the Tory/DUP "coalition" has a majority of two votes, and many in the two parties are furious at Prime Minister May, we must get ready for another early election. When that will be I dunno. However, it should look like what the 2015 article looked like in January of that year. Let's get cracking shall we?Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

At this stage in the 2010-15 parliament, the 2015 election article looked like this. You can see that people at that time had the same view about the chances of an early election, and the article was not exactly well-developed.

By January 2015, the (legally-defined) long campaign for the 2015 election had already begun, so of course there was a lot more coverage. This is not the case for the next election today. Indeed, by the time you posted your message, they hadn't yet finished counting the results from the 2017 election. Kahastok talk 13:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

surely 'Did not contest' is speculation?

Surely the 'Did not contest' under the leaders who sit in their own parliaments is speculation - between now and whenever the election is, they may decide to go for Westminster instead of their own parliaments. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:FD4A:2D60:CBD6:8F36 (talk) 21:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Not so much speculation, as the wrong tense: ridiculous to use a past tense here in reference to a future election. Have changed to "Not a sitting MP". Kevin McE (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Total number of seats in the Commons

The infobox started off saying there are 650 seats in the Commons (and thus 326 needed for a majority), as that is the current situation. However, Kevin McE is concerned that is misleading as, if the election happens when it is scheduled to do so, and if the Sixth Periodic Review of Westminster constituencies goes through as it is scheduled to do so, then the number will be reduced to 600. His proposal, the current edit as I write, is to leave the space in the infobox empty, leaving the article text to explain.

I feel this is unnecessary. There is a reasonable chance that there will be an early election and/or that the new constituencies will not come in, i.e. that the next election will be fought on 650 seats. More importantly, it seems to me that much of the data in the infobox could change -- leaders change (and the LibDem one will soon), and numbers of seats change if there are any defections or by-elections -- yet we've always just shown the current situation anyway. So, I think the best approach for the total number of seats should be the same as for the party leaders: we show the current situation, with additional notes as appropriate. Thus, I prefer this version showing 650 seats with an explanatory footnote, and with a note that Farron is stepping down (also removed by Kevin McE).

What say the rest of you? Bondegezou (talk) 19:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Until the boundary review is implemented, the next general election will take place with 650 seats. Don't see why we can't there put 650 and change to 600 when required. SocialDem (talk) 14:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree, even if it didn't seem unlikely to happen then keeping it at 650 would be the best course of action. Perhaps add a sentence somewhere about the boundary changes though. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for inadvertent removal of note re Farron.

I have been accused of Crystalballing for removing the number (I have never proposed putting 600 as the number of seats). Please explain how admitting that it is a matter of uncertainty by saying nothing is less making an assumption than posting a number that might very well be incorrect. Kevin McE (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We know that the number is 650 now, so that's not an assumption nor uncertainty. You don't know yet if that "might" be incorrect in the future. Your grounds for not saying anything are based on a future event which may or may not happen. There are many reasons under which the number of seats in the next election may still be 650. That boundaries may change is a possibility, but of course, we still don't know it, so the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now. If the boundary review comes into effect, there's no issue at all to change the number accordingly. But as of now, the number of constituencies is 650, and assuming that won't be such in the future based on future events which are not assured to take place is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And I can't find a good reasoning so as to why showing no information is best that showing the current information. Impru20 (talk) 08:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

We know that the number is 650 now: Now, yes; at time of last election, yes; at time of next election (which is the subject of this article), unknown, speculative and crystal balling.

You don't know yet if that "might" be incorrect in the future I absolutely do know that it "might" be incorrect in the future, so do you. You definitely do not know that it will be 650 seats at the time of the next election.

Your grounds for not saying anything are based on a future event which may or may not happen. Don't presume to tell me what my motive is. Your grounds for saying something specific appear to be based on a scheduled future event not happening: that is far more crystal balling than my proposal.

the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now I could not agree more. As of now, we do not know what the number of seats at the next election will be, but we do know that if the two relevant schedules are kept to, there is a very high possibility that there will not be 650 seats, so it is being reckless with the truth to assert that it will be.

But as of now, the number of constituencies is 650, and assuming that won't be such in the future based on future events which are not assured to take place is WP:CRYSTALBALL. And stating that that will still be such in the future based on an assumption that scheduled future events will not come to pass. I am assuming nothing, and am merely seeking to present the article in such a way that it assumes nothing.

I really cannot see how anyone can conclude that specifying either 650 or 600 seats is anything other than WP:Crystalball. When either the date of the election is set, or the boundaries review is enacted or shelved, a number can be added to the infobox; until then, the only honest step is to acknowledge that the matter is under active consideration for change, and not to pretend that it is not. Kevin McE (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Now, yes; at time of last election, yes; at time of next election (which is the subject of this article), unknown, speculative and crystal balling". The part I bolded is the only thing that matters now. We know that NOW the number is 650. Making speculation on which that number would be at the time of next election is speculative, and until changes are not actually carried out, the number would still be 650 because that's the number we have now. So, 650 is not speculative. Anything else, yes.

Making speculation on which that number would be at the time of next election is speculative I am avoiding that. You are not. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You're speculating that 650 may not be the number. Yeah, that's speculation. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Your grounds for saying something specific appear to be based on a scheduled future event not happening". Well, your grounds for saying something specific ARE based on a possible future event happening. That's WP:CRYSTALBALL. We don't know for sure if that event (boundary change) will take place before the next election, because you don't know 1) when will the boundary change enter into effect (it's scheduled for 2018, just as it was scheduled for 2013 before...), and 2) when will the next election take place. So, we stick to what we know now, which is that the number of constituencies is still 650.

Given that I am assiduously avoiding specifying a particular number, this whole paragraph makes no sense at all, and leaves me wondering whether you have actually read anything I have written. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Not specifying a particular number on the grounds that the current number (one which is certain and set into stone right know) may change is speculation. Arguing that such a number may change because a boundary review is initially scheduled for 2018 is speculation (the assumption that the next general election will be held after 2018 is very speculative, so no, you're not avoiding that. In fact, your entire reasoning is based out of a speculation). Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"(...) And stating that that will still be such in the future based on an assumption that scheduled future events will not come to pass". No, you're missing the point. We're not assuming that 650 is the definitive number that will be in force for the next election: we know that's the number in force right now. Your very own assumption of different scenarios for the next election is what constitutes WP:CRYSTALBALL: you're assuming that 650 may not be the number used for the next election, and that's already a future assumption. 650 is the number at present; that's not an assumption, but a certainty. If it changes, there's no difficulty in editing the article to show the change, but let us not assume future possibilities and stick to what we know right now.

But this article is not about what holds now: it is about the next election. You will not find any political commentator who will tell you that the next election will definitely be before the boundary commission report, nor that the said report will definitely reject parliament's request that the number of seats be reduced. So to say that 650 may not be the number of seats is unquestionably true. (That is not the same as saying it will not be 650, but I have not sought to assert that). Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Nor will you find a political commentator that tells you that the next election will definitely be 'after the boundary commission report, not that said report will not definitely reject parliament's request. This is pure speculation you make. Yeah, this article is about the next election, but under WP:CRYSTALBALL, and given that we obviously can't read the future. The 650-seat number is verifiable. The 600-seat one is not, because it still doesn't exist as of yet. As simple as that. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"As of now, we do not know what the number of seats at the next election will be, but we do know that if the two relevant schedules are kept to, there is a very high possibility that there will not be 650 seats, so it is being reckless with the truth to assert that it will be." You see? That's an assumption of a future event. "There is a very high possibility" is your own, personal assumption. Yeah, we could also say, based on reliable sources and on the lack of an overall majority and a strong ruling coalition, that "there is a very high possibility" that an election may be held within this year or early in 2018. That'd also be an assumption of a future event, which would destroy your very own presumption that there's a "very high possibility" that there will not be 650 seats. So, which possibility do we stick to? Of course none, because you can't know that. So, of course, the best course of action for now is to just stick to what we know as of now, which is that the number of seats right now is 650.

"There is a very high possibility" is your own, personal assumption No it isn't, because you have selectively removed it from the full sentence, which referred to election and boundary change schedules being kept to. To present a conditional clause as an absolute is to deliberately misrepresent the person you are quoting, and highly reprehensible if you intend to debate an issue sensibly.

"So, which possibility do we stick to? Of course none, because you can't know that." I agree entirely. The only way to assume neither possibility is to not specify a number. But you are insisting on stating something we cannot know. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"Yeah, we could also say, based on reliable sources and on the lack of an overall majority and a strong ruling coalition, that "there is a very high possibility" that an election may be held within this year or early in 2018." That is a possibility which my proposal does not exclude. But you want to include something that might be directly contradicted in the future.Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

But your proposal takes for granted that the number of seats up for election may vary, but it may not. Your proposal is excluding the possibilities of a new election being held under the same boundaries (because it brings doubt that these will remain) . Again, 650 is verifiable, other number isn't right now. 650 doesn't contradicts WP:CBALL; saying nothing does (while concurrently depriving readers of some essential data).

"But you are insisting on stating something we cannot know". You yourself acknowledge it. You're trying to predict the future. We of course can't know the future, but the fact is that it shouldn't even be attempted unless realiable sources point so. You're trying to think what the future might be based on a possible boundary review that may or may not result in a boundary change, or even to think that the election may be held afterwards. It isn't only that you can't know the future, but that you shouldn't even try to figure it out unless you have reliable sources. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"I really cannot see how anyone can conclude that specifying either 650 or 600 seats is anything other than WP:Crystalball". 650 is the current size of the House of Commons, so specifying that is not WP:CRYSTALBALL. The article must reflect facts as we know them right know, not "possibilities" in the future, no matter how likely they may seem. The fact that you don't specify any number is already an assumption that the number of seats will, or at least may, change, which is already crystalball-ish. You don't know that. You can't know that. Because you lack the most essential information as to when would a constituency review take effect and when the next election will be held. 650 is the number now, and will still be until a review takes place. Making other assumptions is what constitutes a crystal ball. Impru20 (talk) 10:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can, and do, know that it may change. So do you, and everyone aware of the Boundary Commission. We do not lack the knowledge of when the constituency review is due to be enacted (or maybe you do, in which case you are really not sufficiently informed to take part in this discussion). I am making no assumptions, although you repeatedly try to insist that I am. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

"I can, and do, know that it may change" Again, this is an effort at trying to read the future. Exactly what WP:CBALL forbids.

"We do not lack the knowledge of when the constituency review is due to be enacted" You're making an assumption that such a review will result in a boundary change, as well as one that the next election is going to take place after that review. You can't know that. You can't base your reasonings in a future event which you 1) don't know how will end up, and 2) don't even know if it'll be appliable to the next election, because it may be held earlier.

And please: "or maybe you do, in which case you are really not sufficiently informed to take part in this discussion" Don't try to bring me out from this discussion just because I don't agree with you. Others don't agree with you either. I may disagree with some people at times as well, but I usually tend to stick to the issue at hand and not to discuss the others' intelligence. Please, don't WP:OWNBEHAVIOR, thank you. Impru20 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: I see now the footnote added by Bondegezou and I like it now, since it reflects such a possibility of boundary change without assuming it as a certainty nor without taking for granted that it will be in force for the next election. The objective data is that the Sixth Review is due to be implemented by 2018 (at some point during that year), and that, if implemented, the number of seats will be reduced to 600. No assumptions should be made at whether those changes will be implemented by the time of the next election (as you don't know when that'll take place) or whether the Review is definitely going to take place and not, let's say, get postponed again. I think this is a nice informative way to show this data without depriving readers from any info. Impru20 (talk) 11:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I think leaving the field blank is unnecessary. We are able to say some sensible things about this number. It is currently 650. It may change to 600, but this is dependent on the review being implemented and the next election not being until after then. (It is possible, of course, that it could be changed to any other number.) So I think we use text or footnotes or links to explain what we do know.

The only question then is whether we say "600 [footnote]" or "650 [footnote]" or "600 or 650 [footnote]". 650 is the current figure. On the balance of probabilities, I suspect it's more likely to be the figure at the next election than not. So I prefer "650 [footnote]". Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Impru20 (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

No, that is patently not the only question. Either of those is making an assumption. As soon as you use the phrase "On the balance of probabilities" or "I suspect it's more likely" you are admitting that you are speculating, and in breach of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Why on Earth would you specify something that you cannot be sure of, when the option of explaining uncertainty is more honest? It is not as though there is only a remote theoretical possibility of this change, it is a long term policy enactment.

Let us assume, for a while, that the envisaged changes happen. We have the choice of leaving the number of seats as 650, and then having to climb back from that, admit that a false assumption was made, and change the seat number; or we have it unspecified, with a footnote about possibilities, and provide more certain facts when they are known. So climbdown, or acknowledgement of temporary uncertainty.

Now let us assume that the changes don't happen. We either have an accurate number throughout, or we have it unspecified, with a footnote about possibilities, and provide more certain facts when they are known.

So the options amount to one that might be right but might lead to a climbdown, and one option that will be right in plenty of time, but avoids any risk of being incorrect in the meantime. I cannot imagine any reading of the relevant policy, or any reasonable expectation on the part of a reader, in which the former is preferable.

I challenge anyone who is willing to acknowledge that there is genuine doubt about the number of seats there will be available at the next election to explain how putting a number that suggests a non-existent certainty is a better adherence to the policy against crystal balling than informing the reader that there are reasons why the number of seats cannot be stated with confidence at this time. Kevin McE (talk) 17:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I've re-read WP:CBALL and I don't see anything we're in breach of. Can you be more specific? I think we face limited uncertainty: it's either 650 or 600. Wikipedia is allowed under WP:CBALL to talk about future events. We don't have to say nothing in the face of uncertainty. I am all for "explaining uncertainty", which is why I favour adding a footnote. Simply leaving that line completely blank -- which I thought was your proposal for the infobox -- seems over-the-top to me and does not explain the uncertainty.

The other important point is that, right now, there's no uncertainty. Right now, the number is definitely 650. So it's not wrong to describe that as the current situation, even if we know the future situation may change. We show Theresa May as the leader of the Conservatives, but she probably won't be when the election actually happens. If we can't show 650, we should purge all the leaders' photos and name. I don't see how you're happy with those, but not 650 (with footnote). Bondegezou (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It's very simple: because we are not even trying to read the future. We don't try to edit the page so as to have it depend on events that might or might not take place. We stick to the current figure because that's what the number will be if an election is held right now. We don't try to depict how an election will work out if held within one year, two or three, nor do we try to make an infobox element, accessible to readers now, depend on how a future event, which may or may not take place, unfolds. When you remove all figures, you're yourself trying to imagine how the future will be: you argue that you remove them because we don't know which number will be used in a future election basing it out of a series of circumstances which can only happen in the future. That is, in itself, what constitutes your CBALL breach: to make edits trying to guess out how will the future will be, and predicting that the sole possibility that the future may unfold in one way is reason enough to prevent using any number. That is a prediction, or an attempt at making one.

This entire comment of yours, for example, is full of assumptions. "Let us assume, for a while, that the envisaged changes happen", "Now let us assume that the changes don't happen". Your entire reasoning is built on a series of possible what ifs. We stick to 650 because that's the current number, perfectly verifiable. It's not an assumption or a prediction of which may happen. Does it strictly means that the next election will be fought on 650 constituencies? No, but that were the next election be held right know, that'd be the scenario. Do it step-by-step. When changes come, if they do, we shall add them. But don't try to figure out possible changes before we even know how these will unfold, õr if they will at all, because that's not the point of the article. Impru20 (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(reply to Bondegezou) That policy states that "original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and future history [is] inappropriate." Either number is speculative, posting 650 is extrapolation and future history (if that means what I think it does), in a manner that would be unobjectionable in most inter-electoral periods, but not one that is scheduled to incorporate a review of constituencies. I believe that it is original research, because I do not believe you will find any reputable political commentator who would assert confidently that the next election will definitely precede enactment of the re-organisation. Of course we can talk about future events, otherwise the article could not exist, but we cannot act as though we know the relative timing of two likely (one certain, one likely) future events when the schedule of at least one of them is uncertain. I agree that we should explain uncertainty, but I think that we should be upfront about that uncertainty rather than hide it in a footnote. My proposal (you have deleted it twice, so I thought you knew what it was) is to have the sentence rendered as "All sets in the House of Commons", retaining the current links, and I would indeed support a footnote stating that it was 650 at the June 2017 election but it is proposed to reduce this to 600 for elections from 2018 onwards. Right now, there is uncertainty, because it is the next election that we are trying to describe: the current parliament is scheduled to last beyond the date of enactment of the review, but might not. If it were announced that the election will definitely precede the re-organisation, what is true now is relevant to the next election (the subject of this article): until it is, we do not know whether the status quo is relevant, and there is a real and strong possibility that it will not be. I proposed removal of leaders' details years ago, and was voted down for reasons that I never found logically consistent: I would strongly propose at least relabelling as "Current leader", but one battle at a time. There would also have to be either removal of, or footnote explanation of, the seats needed fields. My proposal is definitely true up until whichever occurs first of the announcement of election or enactment of re-organisation, after which something specific (and true) can be put in its place; your preferred option will be proven at that time to have been either true or false all along. I would re-iterate that I am only suggesting this tentative phrasing because it is known to be an unknown at this time (despite Impru's strange insistence that I can' know that it might change: I am not suggesting inclusion of all manner of other potential but less likely contingencies, the unknown unknowns (like the delayed election in 2010 in Thirsk because of the death of a candidate). In short we have a choice between what is true, but in need of future refinement, or what will be probably true if we have another shortened parliament, but probably not true if we don't. I don't think an encyclopaedia should tell people it will be 650 and then changes its information: I prefer one that says it will be all seats, and explains why we do not know right now what that number will be. Kevin McE (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

(reply to Impru20) The interpolated discussion is becoming impossible to follow. Until you acknowledge that I am not predicting anything, but am simply acknowledging the uncertainty (that arises when a statutory review of constituencies, which has been charged with reducing the number of members, is due to be in place by the currently mandated date of the next election), there really is no point in continuing the discussion with you. Suffice to say that you have repeatedly, for what reason I do not know, accused me of taking a position that I have neither proposed nor defended. I will however suggest that you try to clarify your understanding of "may" as opposed to "will", that you have repeatedly confused, and wonder why someone who objects to the inclusion of potential error in this edit is so enthusiastic to include potential error in the infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that you don't put a single effort at trying to refute me. I've explained very carefully why you're making predictions and why you're breaching CBALL. And you're not even make a try to refute it, so that would mean something. What worries me the most is that now you engage in personal accusations about my motives, a behavior which, such as your previous OWNBEHAVIOR above, I fail to understand except in that maybe you've proven yourself unable to reply and instead with the "easy way": to try to dismiss or discredit my position.

But truth is that you refuse to acknowledge that you're in error, and yet you pretend that others acknowledge that you're not "predicting anything" when you've been proven otherwise. The very fact of trying to "acknowledge the uncertainty" of a future event is an attempt at future prediction which you shouldn't do. That's the very breach of CBALL. The "currently mandated date of the next election" is not a fixed event, so is not a future certainty. Nor is it a future certainty that the number of members will be reduced before the next election. You've based all of your reasonings on assumptions and possible what ifs, yet you argue that it's not you the one breaching CBALL. So far, we stick to WP:VERIFIABILITY, which currently points to the number of seats being 650 as of now. They may be reduced for the next election, but we don't know it. Yet we know that 650 is the number in use right know. I can't really understand such a haste for you to take for granted events that may or may not happen; the reasoning behind it belongs only to you. Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

To your recent edit (which was added while I was commenting): "I will however suggest that you try to clarify your understanding of "may" as opposed to "will", that you have repeatedly confused, and wonder why someone who objects to the inclusion of potential error in this edit is so enthusiastic to include potential error in the infobox."

If you cared to read me more carefully, I think you would understand it very quickly. The 650 number is not a potential error. Perceiving it as an error, as you do, is only trying to figure out how the future will unfold. And removing it is acting as if that future was going to unfold like that, and deprives users of some essential data.

Anyway, I've a question for you. So concerned as you are with what the future awaits for the next election, tell us: what's wrong with the current infobox setting, with Bondegezou's footnote? Because all of your worries are already solved by it (as it explains exactly what may happen, but not by removing information but by adding them, which makes things much more clear and useful for readers to understand). It's a very nice compromise solution for everyone... yet you stick with your will to remove the seat number from the infobox. Why? Impru20 (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

UnindentI think the matter is quite simple. The number of seats might be 650, but might not be: it is therefore a potential error. To assert that it will be 650, without knowing for certain that either the election will be before the implementation of the review or that the review will not result in the status quo, and in the face of a high possibility that that will not be the case, is speculative OR. Acknowledging in the infobox that, because of these particular circumstances, there cannot be a confident announcement at present of the number of seats that will be announced, seems to me to be the only responsible course of action, as one that will not be potentially subject to retraction. I reiterate that this is only proposed because of the scheduling of the review of constituencies: it would not be necessary in every inter-electoral period, but this time around, it is certainly not verifiable that the next general election will see competition for 650 seats. I am not predicting anything, because in any eventuality what I am proposing will be correct. The current state of the infobox is not acceptable, because putative information is not information that the reader can rely upon, and the purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give reliable information, not claims liable to retraction.

But we seem unlikely to agree: I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not (the talk page relevant to WP:CBALL). I hope you will think I have summarised the issue impartially. Let's see what they say. Kevin McE (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Again, trying to predict the future. 650 might not be the seats for the next election IF held after 2018 AND the boundary review is implemented. That's a future possibility, still future and still a possibility, thus a scenario based in an assumption. Not verifiable. 650 is verifiable. Simple. You still don't explain the basis for removal of information based on an assumption.

"Acknowledging in the infobox that, because of these particular circumstances, there cannot be a confident announcement at present of the number of seats that will be announced". Hey, hello! But that's already done in an edit by Bondegezou a while ago! And I tried for you to answer to me on this issue and you ignored me completely. What gives, then? It's not even clear what you want.

"because in any eventuality what I am proposing will be correct". Yeah, and we could also delete this article and that would also be correct, but that's not the point of Wikipedia I think. Impru20 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I would describe the above as something of a stalemate. Hopefully others will join the discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

650 + footnote is fine. Saying that the election will have 600 or 650 is not wild speculation, no more than the very existence of a next election. CBALL states that "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; we can reasonably extend this rule to the information within the article. As the 600 or 650 figures are notable and are almost certain to take place, we can and must include the numbers. But most importantly, per WP:IAR we are to present our readers the information that serves them best, including the expected number of seats up for election, regardless of technicalities. Rami R 16:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Noteworthiness of Speculation

There has been some amount of speculation about this election, notably the possibility that it would be held earlier than forseen, maybe even later this year. Is it worthwhile adding anything on this to the article? Munci (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes: within reason and with reliable source citations. I think that would be a good thing. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

If a notable candidate for a minor party has declared they will be standing, is this worth adding to individual constituency article? Phil Hammond has declared he will be standing for the North East Somerset (UK Parliament constituency) for the National Health Action Party against Jacob Rees-Mogg and has been sacked by the BBC as a result but I have a vague memory of a guideline that we don't add candidates until it is "official".— Rod ^talk 06:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no guideline as such, but I know many editors (and I am one of them!) are rather wary of adding candidates in 2018 for a 2020 general election, particularly as they are often self-declared or chosen by parties in unwinnable seats. All it takes is for a few anonymous IPs to add each and every For Britain "candidate" across the country for us to get into an edit war over who is and who isn't an actual, declared, official "candidate". With potential boundary changes coming up too, editing candidates into seat articles might get messy/messier if the original seat doesn't exist! It's perhaps best to leave editing candidates until much closer the time. doktorb _words^deeds 07:07, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

OK Thanks for guidance.— Rod ^talk 07:17, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Unexplained changes

An IP user keeps making huge changes without reason (e.g. deleting the infobox completely). Just a heads up FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

the Inclusion of an election earlier than the tentative date

I thought that it had been discussed on this page before, but the precariousness of this current administration has created the near constant speculation of an early general election. There has been particular situations, however, such as this from 'i News' that shows the possibility of an early election is legitimate. Is there a place for this kind of discussion on the page? Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:50, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I think reliable source coverage of a possible early election could be used to construct some prose for the article, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Theresa May

@Pato Lukassss: I would request you not to start an edit war over this issue, but I believe you are correct in removing may from the infobox as many reliable sources have also confirmed she will not lead the tories into the election. (To name one: [1]). Please, however, discuss this on the talk page to prevent edit wars. Thank you. маsтегрнатаLк 19:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cc: @Bondegezou: маsтегрнатаLк 19:10, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Masterpha: Sorry I've just starting editing Pato Lukas

Note that she has referred to the 2022 election, which doesn't rule out her leading the Tories into an earlier election. I think we should keep her there for the time being, possibly with a note to say that she has ruled out leading them into the 2022 election. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I slightly disagree with removing May as of now (unless she is actually removed from office today). Basically, because 1) a 2022 election may not equal to the "next election" if a snap election is held before that date; 2) May has also been reported to say that "in her heart she would like" to fight election ([2]), but that "her intention is not to" in an attempt to gather support for winning the confidence vote. If she wins, she will remain Tory leader, and there's nothing actually preventing her from fighting the next election if she wishes to (this is not like if there was a leadership contest ongoing from where she has voluntarily chosen to withdraw, but a vague promise which she has not even fully clarified. For instance, if she wins the confidence vote and a snap election is called before 12 December 2019, she could run unopposed as Tory MPs would be unable to call a new confidence vote before that date). Out of respect to WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'll say to keep her until a definitive action is taken that ensures she won't be the Conservative leader ahead of the next election. There's no rush either to remove her right away now; we can remove her from the infobox once her withdrawal is effective if she ends up fulfilling her promise (and if she wins the confidence vote, of course). Impru20^talk 19:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A tricky situation. When will the next general election be held & will May be leading the Conservatives into that general election. GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@Impru20: Yes but all major sources point to her not running --Pato Lukassss (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

We should keep May in the infobox here for now (unless she is removed or resigns). The last iteration of this page wasn't moved to 2020 United Kingdom general election when May said she wouldn't hold a general election. She's not bound by her words, and the phrasing of "the next general election in 2022" gives leeway anyway. Ralbegen (talk) 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, May hasn't ruled out leading the Conservatives into a snap election. Something that would occur, if the House of Commons vote no-confidence in the Conservative minority government or the House of Commons votes a 2/3 majority in having a snap election, following May's call for such an election. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As ever, we need to stop obsessing about the infobox and focus on the text. We need to talk about all this on the page. Bondegezou (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good idea to add her intended resignation as a footnote, though, much like we have as a footnote that Sturgeon doesn't have a Westminster seat. Sceptre (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Footnote sounds great. Bondegezou (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Bondegezou; the footnote is the best option. JDuggan101 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: I seriously think this should be reconsidered. The argument that she didn’t specify the date is slightly weak in my honest opinion, seeing as she has now also confirmed she won’t lead them into the next election (not necessarily 2022, BBC Source: [3]) маsтегрнатаLк 13:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of the article. I suggest you add some text to the article, other people can edit that, and once we've worked that out, it will be easier to decide what to do with the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

May's actual stance taken from the linked BBC source: I've said that in my heart I would love to be able to lead the Conservative Party into the next general election but I think it is right that the party feels that they would prefer to go into that election with another leader. (...) "What I'm clear about is the next general election is in 2022 and I think it's right that another party leader take us into that general election."

Firstly, she is indeed very clear on referring to the 2022 election as the next election. She has deliberately omitted answering whether she would contest an earlier election if held, or even whether she would quit earlier. Secondly, when voicing her own stance she says she would "love" to run, but it's "her party" that feels she should not (it is not a "no, no, no", but rather, a "I'd like but they won't let me but who knows"). We could have her removed from the infobox now only for her to say "I suddenly feel the party now supports me so I'll run" within a few months/years. As she is still the Conservative leader for the time being and her position is not unambiguous or conclusive enough, I think a footnote in the infobox would do the job for now. Impru20^talk 14:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a footnote "May has stated she will stand down before the next election" in the infobox(es) is the right way to go. She is the current leader of the party, she may still be leader if it's an early and enforced one, and we have no idea of who the next leader will be or when they will take office. Dtellett (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Heads up.

Seeing as a non-confidence vote will occur on 16 January 2019, with the potential for a UK general election in 2019. An RM will soon be in order. Not sure what PM Theresa May's status will be concerning leading the Conservatives in the campaign. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Hoo hoo hoo. That being said, we are now within unprecedented territory. Neville Chamberlin WON a no confidence motion in 1940, and he went. We are now in a state of chaos that may need an article of it's own. Right now, nobody has a clue what's going on. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I would certainly ensure that all relevant article titles are watched and redirected while necessary. doktorb _words^deeds 20:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Reliable sources are currently reporting that the 16 Jan no confidence vote is likely to be won by the government, thus not precipitating a general election. That said, the possibility of an early general election and of specifically in 2019 remain significant. Bondegezou (talk) 23:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

TIG in infobox

The Independent Group were added to the infobox, but Kevin McE removed them, arguing they are not a party. It is somewhat unclear what their intentions are for the next general election (which also depends on when the election is), so I'm sympathetic to not including them in the infobox. At the same time, their formation is clearly very significant and they are already appearing in polling, so I think we need to say something about them on this article, be it in the infobox and/or in text. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about TIG to the prose (but have left them out of the infobox). Bondegezou (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: Well, I suppose they aren't technically a party, so we don't know their intentions for fielding candidates at the next election yet, so we can't really have them in the infobox. However, for the same reason, I don't believe we should make any mention of them fielding candidates at the next election, and therefore I disagree with your sentence, especially since it seems a bit WP:CRYSTAL (saying they could form a party). --TedEdwards 17:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Frankly, the whole infobox is WP:CRYSTALine, with pictures of party leaders who might or might not be in post at the time of the election, numbers that might not hold by then, the assumption (which seems to have been proved correct, but was nevertheless an assumption) that the number of seats will be unchanged, etc. I won't argue (now) for the wholesale removal of that (if I did, I would start wondering how much of the article is encyclopaedic fact rather than journalistic analysis), but certainly addition of what is not yet a party, and has not yet indicated any intentions in regard to the next election, is at the moment inappropriate outside of explaining its appearance in polling. Kevin McE (talk) 11:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I'm very sympathetic to your analysis of the sense of an infobox in an election some distance away. However, my previous experience has been that most editors are keen on having an infobox. What can you do? Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel a passing reference to them in the prose is reasonable, something along the lines of "In February 2019 a group of eleven MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties resigned their party whip to sit as independents, but did not immediately form a political party." I agree that they should not be present in the infobox. Reference to future plans I agree is WP:CRYSTAL as at present it is no more than speculation and is not even a position stated officially by the group itself, let alone reported as having happened by secondary sources. If however they officially register as a party then they should immediately be placed in the infobox in a position equivalent to their numbers at that time. Aurourafx (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I think some mention in the article is warranted. I'm happy to switch to the wording suggested above. Bondegezou (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Could the sentence be changed to "In February 2019 a group of eleven MPs from both the Labour and Conservative parties resigned their party whip to sit as independents, but did not form a political party.", removing the word "immediately"? I just feel the sentence at the moment could imply that they will form a political party, which is completely uncertain. --TedEdwards 19:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

On March 29th 2019, TIG announced its intentions to become a party as Change UK - The Independent Group. The application has not yet been cleared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.39.251 (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Flynn

Paul Flynn is also standing down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.10.165.90 (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Paul Flynn sadly died a few days ago, which is why he is no longer listed as an MP due to stand down. Ralbegen (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Change UK vs. Brexit Party

Good morning from Chicago. I couldn't help but notice that in the party leader & general overview table on the top of the page, you have Change UK in, while the Brexit Party is notably absent. This is quite laughable if you scroll down and take a peak at the opinion polling. As of this writing, the Brexit Party is tied with the Lib Dems at 13% - while Change UK can't even muster more than a measly 2%. Would it not be more prudent to stagger the parties from most popular to least (via the opinion polls)? If no one objects, I'm going to shuffle them accordingly in a short while. No parties will be excluded in my edit, so the table will be expanded a bit. Chase1493 (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus to date has been to base the infobox for the next election on the results of the last election or the current standing, and not to make decisions on polling. (Not least because raw polling figures are a poor predictor of how many MPs will be elected.) Change UK, although not around at the last election, do have a significant number of MPs from defections that earn them their place in the infobox. The Brexit Party have no MPs. So, no, don't make any changes, not until you can show that consensus has evolved. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, totally fair. I actually meant to retract the request after realizing what you've already mentioned. Thanks for the response! Chase1493 (talk) 20:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

MPs standing down if there isn't a snap election

Some MPs, lately Vince Cable, have said they won't stand in the election if at the scheduled time, but will if there's a snap election before then. Given there is considerable speculation that there may be a snap election, I don't think we can simply list such as "not standing at the next election", but perhaps we can list them in a more complicated way, noting this caveat...? Ideas, people? Bondegezou (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

pictures on that pesky info box

AS there is a message saying "do not remove May or Cable without discussion," I thought it would be a good idea to start one. The photos of the leaders are, in fact, those party's nominees for Prime Minister. I know that Nicola Sturgeon is there, and she shouldn't, but that's a discussion for another time. May is leaving office as Tory leader tomorrow, so we should replace her with a "nobody" silhouette ASAP, and change the rest to TBD until a successor can be chosen. Same with Cable. This is about the NEXT election and it is not WP:Crystal to say that both of these people will not be a candidate for PM in the NEXT election.

Yes, one can say that in Westminster system governments, resigned leaders have indeed canceled their resignations (Pierre Trudeau did it in 1979) and went on to run in the snap election, but this is something that cannot happen HERE, given the poll numbers. While we're at it, the Queen can technically sack the prime minister (1975 Australia), but that's not going to happen either. HM, and Prince Charles are NOT suicidal. To conclude: May and Cable must be removed from the infobox immediately as they are NOT candidates for prime minister in the next election. A silhouette picture must replace them until a successor is chosen. It would be deceptive to do otherwise. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above - I'm a member of the LibDems. Jo Swinson & Ed Davey have already held quite a few hustings even though the date for nominations hasn't technically passed yet (officially tonight, I think). I think we can safely say Vince Cable, at least, won't be leader at the next election, removing him tomorrow would be fine. At the very least the note should be updated to mention them. The Tories are a mess at the moment, and whilst in theory it wouldn't surprise me if all the candidates pulled out or something equally bonkers, I have no objection to removing May too. VJ (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)