Talk:Christian Wakeford

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Politics and Government Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Allowances controversy

The section on Covid and allowances continues to be removed. The section is sourced from reputable media outlets and is a relevant part of the political career. Please do not remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVivacious (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, it is a hit job. Please read WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, WP:PRIMARY and WP:MOS in particular. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As clearly noted by DrVivacious, noting criticism of - and by - elected public servants and in media reports is fair, legitimate and accurate. The above comment resorts to dramatised, emotive and opinion-based language and the criticism is unsubstantiated. RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that there is an outstanding FOI request at https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/councillor_wakefords_meeting_att?unfold=1 regarding his alleged Pendle special responsibility allowance. That will be a primary source, as is the current council website source we used & which the FOI request refers to. 146.200.49.138 (talk) 01:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation about future documents' possible contents is outside the scope of wiki. See, for example, WP:V and WP:USEPRIMARY. RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with us mentioning Cllr Perks at length, where he notes a "comparable example" is that there are also comparable examples for what Wakeford has done, notably his fellow MP in the neighbouring constituency of Bury North, James Daly. Also, I suspect Perks may represent a party other than the Conservatives, in which case his comments could also be viewed as basic political point-scoring. - 146.200.49.138 (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of an MP's parallel drawing of expenses from three public authorities is not invalidated when it is said by another public figure holding different political opinions. The report, citing an elected councillor and multiple newspaper reports, is accurate. (If another MP elsewhere in the country has also done so, and there exists a tangible basis to link this to Cllr. Wakeford's actions, then that can be cited.) RottenBoroughs (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]