Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Gay issues

There is a substantial section on Tim Farron's alleged views on LGBT issues, which he has repeatedly denied with references to same. To leave this in without including relevant equivalent information about other Party leaders is an indication of bias and should, imho, either be removed or include reference to the other leaders, eg. [Theresa May https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826], in order to retain NPOV and not be seen to be campaigning for any side. --AlisonW (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it should probably be removed, but I disagree with what you allege to be the facts and your rationale. This isn't a section about leaders' views on LGBT rights. It is specifically about Tim Farron's views because that is what the reliable sources are about. He had initially chosen not to answer the question in a way that suggested homosexuality is a sin, then said it was not. That is what the sources in the article say, and that is the issue that has been making news. If other leaders' views become an issue in the campaign, then they should be included as well. Finding one article that lists everything another of the leaders has ever said about LGBT rights is not the same as reflecting the coverage of the issue.

The real question is not about fairness or NPOV, but about whether this is actually warrants mention as a campaign issue. That is not to suggest that what he said wasn't hurtful or out of step with Lib Dems and the voters they are trying to win over during this campaign, or that it wasn't noteworthy. What I mean is that at this early stage is it hard to say whether this will be considered an important issue in the campaign. -Rrius (talk) 16:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rrius said. But I would argue for keeping this in the article, if only because the campaign is still young and this is one of the few controversies that - so far - have stood out. If that changes in the long run and this gay sex row is supplanted by other things, we can always choose to remove it at a later date. But we don't have to predict the future, we can just go with what we know now. And that is: it's one of the few controversies that was widely publicized, so it should probably be included. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not a "substantial section"; it's 2 short sentences in the section named "Issues". It certainly is/was an issue, in that it was headline news and widely reported. In contrast, the voting patterns of other leaders on similar topics is/was not. NPOV is not about finding and inserting other information that provides some contrast; it's about reporting what sources state in a way that is proportionate and representative. As the other editors state, plenty of other things are likely to come up in the next few weeks, but Farron (alone of the leaders) had this to deal with early on, so there it is in the article, as it should be. (Also consider, AlisonW, if your user page comment – "I used to be very active in and around the Westminster Bubble for the LibDems" – could be an influence. If not, then that's fine.) EddieHugh (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

LBGT issues are of course very important, but it seems to me that Farron's Christianity and inconsistent voting record (which in fact was mostly positive, but I now see has been edited out) was deliberately targeted by supporters of other parties to make a story (media bubble?). I agree with AlisonW - some context / balance is needed here: otherwise delete the whole paragraph ... perhaps not a bad idea in any case, given the gravity of other issues being raised. Roy Bateman (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

It's not our job to judge the motivations of whomever started asking questions about Farron's stance on gay issues. We are simply here to report what is notable and verifiable. This whole gay sex ordeal passes those two tests. As for embedding the story in more context, I invite you to be bold.—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Mrs May's views are (if anything more) notable and verifiable surely. I think this para is quite long enough: unless there are more 'events' of course ... now what about housing, the environment, etc.? Roy Bateman (talk) 07:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The section is on issues. Farron's views were an issue. May's views were not an issue. Therefore, Farron's views should be included and May's should not. Simple. EddieHugh (talk) 09:32, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Eddie here. May's voting record on gay rights is irrelevant, and including it seems to be an undue attack on her or an attempt to defend Farron. — Richard BB 11:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

A reliable source citation has been given for discussing May's voting record in the context of the matter: that demonstrates it was, at least to some degree, an issue too. Bondegezou (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

This seems to really conflict with WP:UNDUE. The Independent (which is far from being nonpartisan) seems to have written this entirely to attack May. Ultimately I'm not sure why we'd include it in our article here. It has nothing to do with the 2017 election, as there has been no real controversy about it recently. Meanwhile, as stated above, Farron's comments did create a stir. — Richard BB 12:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE requires us to look at the range of reliable source coverage. The Independent is a major UK newspaper and generally considered reliable, but, sure, we need to look broadly. That's why I used the phrase "at to some degree" above: one article alone doesn't make May's position an issue, but nor does it seem appropriate to dismiss it entirely as you did above. So I'm looking around to see what additional coverage there is or is not.

Meanwhile, there are many other campaign issues that have certainly received far more coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So, there's also this New Statesman piece linking Farron's comments to May's Christianity. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Farron's had multiple interviews and a question in the House of Commons on the subject; May hasn't talked about it at all during the campaign afaik. Fair or not, it's only been an election campaign issue for one of those people. Even the NS article goes to pains to explain why Farron's received more attention for it. May's past positions on LGBT issues is noted in her own article, as is the criticism her appointment as Minister for Equalities received the last time it was a major political issue for her Dtellett (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I took the wrong approach in getting my point across. The range of sources I'm not too concerned with (more is always better, of course). My point is its inclusion in the first place. There doesn't seem to be a controversy or debate going on about TM's view on gay rights, which is why I wonder why we'd include other than to defend Tim Farron. — Richard BB 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Just a quick appendment to say I echo Detellett's words. — Richard BB 12:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

It's an election: it's an unfolding series of events, so it's hard to make decisions on what is important. Some things blow up and vanish; others make a lasting impression. We do our best to navigate this. I recognise we're all trying to do our best here.

The Farron story that he wasn't clear about something and then was clear about it looks like a storm in a teacup to me. It's blown over. Will it be a defining issue of this election campaign? Probably not. Will it be a defining issue of Farron's performance in this election campaign? Probably not. Will it be one of a number of issues to say about Farron's performance in this election campaign? Probably.

There are as many things today that might be just as important to the campaign as a whole (criticism of the Conservatives repeating "strong and stable" -- which I've added -- or Labour attacks claiming May is avoiding the voters; Rachel Johnson defecting to the LibDems; her brother Boris being Boris; growth slowing; terrorism operations; Brexit, Brexit and more Brexit). I'd rather keep the "Issues" section to the biggest stuff and maybe have a timeline mentioning things like Farron/LGBT.

If we do cover Farron/LGBT, we need to do so in a balanced way. We must be led by what reliable sources say. We have two articles making a link to May. It doesn't matter that May hasn't talked about the issue: it matters whether reliable sources have talked about her in relationship to the issue. Two articles is fewer than the number of articles that discussed Farron's initial comments or later comments, but it's two more than zero.

I am, thus, torn: to discuss this brouhaha properly, I'd like to see the matter discussed from various angles, reflecting the breadth of coverage. On the other hand, I don't think the matter warrants a whole lot of space. But it's hard to be brief.

The above discussion probably hasn't helped any, so to try to end with a concrete suggestion: if this issue gets no more significant coverage in the next few days, I don't think we can call it a major issue of the campaign and I think we should drop it altogether. Meanwhile, I've tweaked the existing text to be clearer, but will not dispute edits around the stuff on May. Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it's important to be balanced, but balanced in this issue doesn't mean making an issue out of May's LGBT record just because the same has been done to Farron. There are a couple of articles that discuss this, sure, but it's hardly something that's reached national levels of debate like with Farron. There isn't really a controversy with May outside of these articles (as they seem to be written to defend him). Similarly to your point about it being difficult to see what is or is not important: as far as I can tell, May's LGBT record isn't important as it's not been an issue recently. That said, I agree that in the long run Farron's comments might turn out to be a storm in a teacup. I'd suggest waiting a bit more than a few days to see if it resurfaces, if not I'd suggest moving it to Tim_Farron#LGBT_rights. — Richard BB 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I just clarify, when you say you won't dispute the edits around May, do you mean you agree that it can be removed? I was about to do so, but I'd rather not just yet if we're not in agreement. — Richard BB 13:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

With the vast majority of media coverage dedicated to Farron over the space of a week being based around his religion and responses to questions on homosexuality I think it's pretty optimistic it won't be a defining feature of Farron's campaign at this stage, especially considering how little limelight he's managed to get for other things (bar the Lib Dem position on the EU, which is appropriately mentioned). Obviously the repetition of "strong and stable" is another major campaign theme; May's religion being referenced in a couple of articles that basically explain why it's less of a problem for her isn't. If there's a concern over balance, then a more appropriate (but probably excessively detailed) way of handling it would be to add a comment from one of the numerous commentators who suggested Farron was being unfairly singled out for his religion. Dtellett (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Richard BB, remove or add, I won't revert. Dtellett, that does seem sensible.

Both, I agree with reviewing this particular issue after several days and considering whether or not it still looks like it warrants coverage here (or indeed under Tim Farron#LGBT rights). A week, as they say, is a long time in election articles. I won't pre-judge that decision now. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Greens have latched on to it now (also here), so it is a campaign issue, not just a media storm. EddieHugh (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Continued inclusion of this paragraph seems partisan - especially now we have a Tory MP to stand down after 'calling homosexuality a danger to society' - also reported in the Guardian and Telegraph. Roy Bateman (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Its continued inclusion of this paragraph is anything except partisan. Worse even: removing it would be a partisan move, as it appears we would then be covering for the LibDems and Tim Farron. Also, your story about a conservative MP who called homosexuality a danger to society does not mean anything to the Farron information - it's only an argument to say something about this specific Tory MP in the article as well - but it's not at all an argument to remove the Farron information. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 08:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Point taken Amberrock and thanks to Bondegezou for edit - moving rapidly on ... Roy Bateman (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I added a sentence about the Tory MP standing down. Happy for that inclusion to be reviewed as that story unfolds. I stuck it at the end of the paragraph about Farron, making the paragraph about LBGT rights generally, but I wondered whether it should be dealt with separately as there is no direct connection between the two. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the obvious connection between the two is the fact that comments were made (or withheld, in the case of Farron) by sitting MPs on LGBT issues within the timeframe of this election campaign. It makes sense to put them together - one paragraph that deals with all the LGBT issues of this campaign. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 22:56, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm apprehensive about the two being together without further clarification of Mr Farron's position; while he may have been ostensibly baited into his comments, his voting record demonstrates that he is supportive of LGBT rights. I feel that some clarification needs to be included if Mr Turner's standing-down is to mentioned alongside it, as their respective voting records place clear water between them with regards to LGBT rights. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Not standing against the Speaker

It briefly appeared as if the LibDems would stand against the Speaker, but that's not happening. We had a short paragraph about it, but I deleted it a few days ago as a non-event. Ebonelm recently restored the material here, saying "interesting information regarding convention".

It would be interesting, I suggest, were it happening, but it's not. It was reported by a local paper, but was reversed the next day. I've not seen any significant coverage of this. It just looks like a massive non-event to me. Can we re-delete? We can simply have a sentence about how parties don't usually stand against the Speaker if the convention warrants explanation. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

If it was happening it would be notable. It's not happening so it's not notable. Re-delete.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Done -- Tannlos (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Bondegezou; it seems to be a total non-story, and I'm not sure if it's even been replicated outside of this one local paper. — Richard BB 17:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Campaign section rework

In the Campaign section, I'm wondering if splitting by parties is being overly restrictive. For example, rather than my recent edits it would have been neater to have said "Following the local elections, Labour proposed [tax policy], the Conservatives focused on [mental health policy] while the Lib Dems committed to [pensions policy]. The Archbishops also intervened, raising..." etc.

Equally I'm not sure adding to the "Background" section is sufficient. I see in the 2010 general election page that they had an "April" and "May" section. Do you think we could repeat? We could keep the "Party campaigns" section if they relate only to eg personnel and machinery, which is really what it started as if I recall right. SocialDem (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all that. Bondegezou (talk) 20:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

NHS?

The NHS - though not mentioned at all - is probably the second biggest issue in this election (after Brexit). Today we have had the Green Party standing down, and Labour and Lib Dems saying they won't campaign against Dr Irving (National Health Action Party), who is trying to unseat Jeremy Hunt (current Health Minister). 109.147.66.215 (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have citations on the not campaigning bit?

More broadly, yes, we should be covering the NHS and its role in the campaign, with the LibDems' 1p on income tax proposal, and Labour's proposal on hospital parking fees. Bondegezou (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The not campaigning has now led three members to be expelled from Labour. CarlDurose (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem with the horizontal bar of seats per party

The bar suffer from the usual problem when a party has a very small number of seats : the lenght its percentage give him is smaller than the lenght of the letter written below. The latter then push the colored lenght longer than it should, reducing the others party lenghts. It is visible there by looking at the little arrow above the middle, showing the 50 % of seats limit. Before my edit, the Conservative bar is under the majority limit, when it should be slightly past it given the results of the election. After my edit, it is past the arrow. I even wonder if the length of one letter may already be too much for LD seats, the lettering needing to be made smaller.--Aréat (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There isn't any display issue on my end (it displays as intended: the arrow lies above a majority) and other editors aren't seeing the same, so the problem is probably on your end. Mélencron (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Was gonna say the same thing as Mélencron, it's fine for me. -- Tannlos (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Not for me (on iPad). If it's not right on some displays, we should change it. Bondegezou (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

You're seeing the little downward arrow as being on the left of the blue bar right side?--Aréat (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Areat's edit: arrow over the right end of the blue bar. Tannlos' edit: arrow over left end of the grey bar. Bondegezou (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we should detach the party labels from the coloured bars altogether? What if we just had the colours, perhaps with a separate legend next to it? -- Tannlos (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

That would work, or just detach the ones that don't fit. Bondegezou (talk) 20:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

↓

330

28

9

54

229

  Conservative   Labour   Liberal Democrats   Scottish National Party   Other

Does this sit well with you all? Feel free to edit -- Tannlos (talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why make things complicated when, as far as I know, just writting a few letter vertically is enough?--Aréat (talk) 21:41, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Because, as you said yourself, "I even wonder if the length of one letter may already be too much", so this is a solution that isn't tied to the length of the party name. -- Tannlos (talk) 21:53, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Although it is fine on my end as well with the party names attached to the bar template, this looks to be a nice solution for this relatively small problem - Skuipers (talk) 10:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with either Tannlos's or Aréat's solution. Bondegezou (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Visually, I personally prefer Tannlos's solution – it allows the bars to scale well on all resolutions. Mélencron (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Isn't there tools to simply make the text smaller, though? It looked better before, in my opinion.--Aréat (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Done - Skuipers (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Constituent country election pages!

I need help setting up the pages United Kingdom general election, 2017 (England), United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Wales) and United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Northern Ireland) as nothing has been done so far and are currently redirects, I have tried to get the English page going but there is so much to do and I keep getting reverted, we need these pages and Scotland's page is currently well set up and there are separate pages for the 2015 election in the constituent countries so why not been done so far for the 2017 election especially the Northern Ireland article hasn't even been set up yet. Please can we sort this out. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4CC:B7F5:EAFD:EFA4 (talk) 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

Why do we need these? Maybe worth looking into once results are in, and if/when this page becomes too large. SocialDem (talk) 12:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why do we need them? We need them because each of the four countries of the UK tend to vote in different ways now especially given the advent of devolution. Northern Ireland and Scotland have always had their own pages and they need it for this election as well, I can't believe that there is such a lack of enthusiasm that I have to justify the need for those pages, sorry not having a go here or anyone in particular but I am very disappointed at the attitudes being displayed for showing no need or want for those separate articles in one of the most important elections the UK has faced for many decades. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:9D97:7143:2DB7:2D00 (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC))

As I've said, shall we wait until the results come in so we can see if they merit their own pages? Analysis may be sufficient in this article. SocialDem (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't think that's a good enough answer, if it was ok to do it in 2010 and 2015 why is it not ok to do it til after the results are in, it will be too late by then especially as it's perfectly ok for there to be a Scottish article but not for the rest of the UK. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:A3:FD70:70F6:A76C (talk) 07:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC))

I note the pages for 2010 and 2015 are very sparse. SocialDem (talk) 11:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

Only i must say that we have to decide officialy the images for the infobox. Stop the picture fighting now, before protecting the article. --DogofJustice (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

They look fine, now. Is anyone actually "fighting"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The Corbyn photo was changed here, without any discussion on this page, but the new photo has now been removed from Corbyn's article (an action which I support). I favour returning to the previous Corbyn image. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Other parties to list

In the "Parties and candidates" section, we have one sub-section on Great Britain and one on Northern Ireland. The NI table, after listing the "major" parties, then lists "Other parties contesting", 4 of them. I think those are all the other parties in NI standing in more than one seat.

The GB table also lists "Other parties contesting", and then just mentions one additional party, the Scottish Green Party. However, the Scottish Green Party are only standing in 3 seats IIRC. Other parties would seem to warrant mention just as much or more so, like National Health Action Party, Women's Equality Party, English Democrats and People Before Profit Alliance. So, what should we include and what should we exclude? We could go for any parties in the Template:British political parties that are standing in >1 seat in this general election...? Bondegezou (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

It's hard to know where to draw the line; PBPA and TUV in Northern Ireland both have seats in the Assembly, but are only standing one candidate each. Perhaps all parties with seats in a regional assembly, plus those standing more than [some number] of constituencies? I've started candidates standing in the United Kingdom general election, 2017 which lists the parties standing insofar as I've been able to find sources. Warofdreams talk 17:27, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I quite like the suggestion of any party standing in more than one seat, given the whole point of that section is to be exhaustive. Dtellett (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just listed the 10 parties standing in Great Britain, other than those in the table with 5 or more candidates, in the United Kingdom general election, 2017 § Candidates section. I've also fully outlined candidates standing in Northern Ireland. SocialDem (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that works, SocialDem, and thanks Warofdreams for starting that new article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

(1) Wobble and (2) Corbyn/MI5

Excuse me, but just thought it would be better to discuss this. Why exactly shouldn't either of that be added to the article? It's pretty relevant. 49.200.244.181 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Wobble: campaigns always see lots of polls and lots of over-interpretation of polls. We link to all the polls in the polling article. I don't think we need discussion of each and every poll, and the cite given and text offered is questionable (we don't know whether it's a rogue poll yet).

MI5: Tory atacks around Corbyn/Labour as being weak on defence or Corbyn's claimed support for terrorism (or, say, his voting record on Northern Ireland, friendliness to Sinn Fein) warrant attention, I suggest, given they've been significant parts of the campaign. However, this one particular report about MI5 having a file on Corbyn has not attracted much interest yet and doesn't appear to me to warrant attention (yet).

In short, we're not covering every election article, or every twist or turn in the campaigning. We are covering issues/messages that have been significant across the election.Bondegezou (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It was compelling enough to make them u-turn over dementia tax, wouldn't it be worth mentioning in just a line 49.200.244.172 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with User:Bondegezou - we've tried to keep the campaign section focus on significant developments, and that's normally evidenced by wide coverage/headlines. That said, possible the polls could be mentioned following today's social care u-turn. Just need to see if a reputable source links it to the policy change. Don't think IRA mention in a single source is (yet) notable. SocialDem (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

There's been more coverage today of Corbyn/IRA, so I'm leaning towards that warranting a mention, although I wouldn't bother with the MI5 file angle.

We should cover the U-turn on the "dementia tax" and that could be somewhere where we talk about the polling showing Labour doing much better. RS have made that link. Or I'd be fine with a separate mention saying Labour's polling has improved. We shouldn't use the earlier wording that talked about a "rogue poll". There are several polls with similar results: this looks like the polling picking up real changes in sentiment and that's how most RS are reporting it. Bondegezou (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

PM General Election campaign possibly suspended

I'll let those familiar with UK law handle this, but this article may be affected by the following current event: 2017 Manchester Arena incident. There are reports that the PM's general election campaign may have been suspended. — Gestrid (talk) 01:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not a matter of law: it's a voluntary act by the parties to suspend campaigning. It should indeed be noted, agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ballotboxworm (talk • contribs) 17:58, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

seventh/eight party

UKIP are referred to as the "seventh party" despite having no seats. The Greens and Plaid Cymru both won seats and therefore should be the seventh and eight parties. 86.178.215.25 (talk) 18:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed UKIP. We could add all 3 but I don't think they have enough votes or seats to justify it. Dayshade (talk) 18:12, 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)

I realise that. I was questioning whether enough thought had been put into "equalizing" this article in terms of images.Deb (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong link in Results (Pirate Party)

The Pirate Party link in the Results section should link to the Pirate Party UK page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party_UK), it currently links to the "Pirate Party" page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirate_Party) which is just about the concept of a Pirate party. --OldNewBorrowedBlue (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That be fixed now, yarrr. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Geographic voting distribution

I have updated the 2017 geographic voting distribution map. Similar to the one listed on the 2015 election page 'Geographic voting distribution' section United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Geographic_voting_distribution

2015 version

Results of the 2015 general election in the United Kingdom: voting distribution per constituency.

2017 version

Results of the 2017 general election in the United Kingdom: voting distribution per constituency.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelco de Vlieger (talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

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
	Conservatives	414	409	406-415	391
	Labour Party	155	167	152-164	170
	SNP	53	46	45-48	49
	Liberal Democrats	6	7	8-14	13
	Plaid Cymru	2	3	4-5	3
	Green Party	1	0	1	1
	UKIP	0	0	0	0
	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

This chart treats different parties differently. For example, the word "Conservatives" are what individuals are. But other parties are listed by their name such as "Labour Party". It should be one way or another. A hypothetical example would be "Communist Party" and "Communists". But then, Wikipedia is just wacky, trying to pretend it is scholarly. Chicamcam (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Popular vote, aggregate

If adding Labour, SNP and the Lib.Dems popular votes - then they have both more votes than Tories and a majority of all votes. Couldn't this be mentioned in the article ? A second issue - is it really true that May wants to tax demented people ? If true, that sounds just as crazy as when Thatcher wanted all to pay the same amount of taxes (if I understood that matter correctly, should all tax-payers pay the same amount of Pounds in taxes, totally unrelated to incomes. Which became thew beginning of her fall). Why and how to tax for instance different levels of dementia ? And are the Ulster Unionists sharing such ideas ? Boeing720 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC) I haven't the foggiest idea of how my contribution became located inside an earlier one, just by the way. Boeing720 (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Scottish Tories possible breakaway

Really setting the cat among the pigeons, this: Ruth Davidson planning Scottish Tory breakaway as she challenges Theresa May's Brexit plan. There are 13 Scottish MPs, conveniently outnumbering the DUP seats (10). Note also the LGBT issue. This all probably needs mentioning somewhere. Not sure whether in this article or elsewhere. What articles naturally cover follow-up consequences from this election? Carcharoth (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, newspapers might be not telling the truth. Ruth Davidson rubbishes claims the Scottish Tories are plotting breakaway. Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The SNP lost 19 seats, not 21.

54 seats before election - 21 seats = 33 seats, not 35.

Therefore the SNP lost 19 seats. Yet the article lists them as losing 21. Unless there's something I'm missing here.

Or perhaps, the number of seats before the election is incorrect instead (it should therefore be listed as 56, not 54).

86.161.53.118 (talk) 10:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The SNP lost 21 seats compared to the last general election, which is how results are usually presented. Between the last general election and this one, 2 SNP MPs left the party because of varied scandals, so they only had 54 at dissolution. Bondegezou (talk) 10:58, 10 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)

The leader of SF is Michelle O'Neil, you're right, she should be listed rather than Gerry Adams who is the President of SF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.190.90 (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

I would change Sinn Fein for Plaid.Cymru since Sinn Fein are abstentionists and will not even take their seats109.175.185.120 (talk) 13:35, 10 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)

That is incorrect. The 318 number *does* include the Speaker. Elsewhere on the page, the figure is correctly given as 317 without the speaker. The regional result for England also includes him - it would be 296 without him. Manolan1 (talk) 21:26, 10 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)

Has the speaker no parliamentary vote ? (may be of significance with a tiny majority) Boeing720 (talk) 00:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Presumably a casting vote? It will be clearly laid out somewhere, maybe even in a Wikipedia article such as Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom). See also Speaker Denison's rule. Carcharoth (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

As I noted earlier on the page, currently has 318 in one place (with a note that says it doesn't include the speaker, which is incorrect) and 317 elsewhere. Also, the regional result for England includes the speaker (should be 296 without him). Manolan1 (talk) 21:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The only "318"s in the article are now for reference number 318? Maybe the same note about Bercow should be added to the 297? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Someone has corrected it since I posted earlier. But, as you say, the 297 is still there. Manolan1 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

So I've added a note. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat seats

Why do some sources claim that the Lib Dems gained 4 seats and some claim they gained 3 seats? The Guardian says a net gain of three (won 8, lost 5, new total of 12), while the BBC says a new total of 12 and a net gain of 4? Carcharoth (talk) 08:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Looking at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015, the Lib Dems had 8 members elected but 9 members at dissolution. Was there a by-election somewhere? Yes, it was Richmond Park that went from Conservative to Liberal. So it depends whether you report from the totals at the previous election, or from the totals at dissolution. The totals at dissolution make more sense. Carcharoth (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Doing it based the last election gives you consistent data to compare with - so you see in one list all the changes that have occurred between the elections. Remember that some seats change parties without a by-election - UKIP, the SNP (twice) and Labour all lost seats in 2015-17 without by-elections. And often by-elections are fought in particular circumstances, have lower turnout, and give results that are reversed at the following general election (e.g. Sarah Olney in Richmond Park). Kahastok talk 09:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that after this change, the sum of all the seat changes is -1, but there were the same number of seats in the two parliaments. We should be consistently basing this either on the last election or on the dissolution. I can't believe that this has not come up before; I don't know what Wikipedia's the convention is, but we should follow it consistently. Kahastok talk 09:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we should be consistent. I changed it because before before it said "seats before 9" and "seats won 12" and "change 4", which made no sense. There must be some way to indicate whether or not a figure is from the last general election or the point of dissolution. Carcharoth (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The sum of seat changes adding up to -1 might be because the Speaker's seat is included in the previous Conservative total of 330 but not in the election total of 317? Carcharoth (talk) 09:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear. The UKIP change (should be zero, as Carswell switched back to being an independent) is not treated consistently either. Bit of a mess at the moment. Someone needs to sort it all out in a consistent manner, following previous articles and following what the convention is. Carcharoth (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Standard practice on Wikipedia follows most reliable sources, which is to show changes compared to the last election, ignoring any changes since then. Thus, UKIP lost 1, the LibDems gained 4. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I understand that now, but it is confusing and not clearly presented. In the infobox, where it says "outgoing members", it links to List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015. Most people would assume that outgoing members would be the members of parliament at dissolution, not as elected at the start of the parliament. When people look at the infobox, they see two numbers on their own ('seats before' and 'seats won'), and a change number, and it is confusing that the two don't match. It can take a while to realise that it is the line above (the one that says 'Last election'), that has the number of seats that is the one that you subtract/add with 'seats won' to get the change. It causes confusion. There must be a better way to present these figures so that people realise what is going on without this confusion. Some suggestions:

• Add a line showing change within the lifetime of the parliament (i.e. change between start of parliament and dissolution).
• Give both the change from dissolution to after the election and the change from one election to the next, and use language that makes it clear which is which.
• Add a footnote (similar to the one about the Speaker) explaining that some media outlets give the change since the last election and some give the change since dissolution.

Regardless of what is done in the infobox (where there are space constraints), there is no excuse at all for not making this all crystal clear in the text of the article. The background section should explain in each and every case how the number of seats has changed within the lifetime of the parliament leading up to the election. And the actual changes in the election should be given, such as the Conservatives regaining Richmond Park. Though I see now that this section has been spun off to List of MPs who lost their seat in the United Kingdom general election, 2017. There should still be a summary in this article of the changes. Going back to the seat number changes, I see there is some edit warring over this: [2] and [3]. Maybe Lmmnhn could explain here. Do either of you know where you get consensus from for your claims? Has this been discussed before? Carcharoth (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry, I see a section has been started below about this.

Infobox

Ignoring the speaker, there are 9 groups represented in the new parliament. Wouldn't it be easiest and avoid any future arguments just to include them all? 77.101.115.119 (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd support that. Most countries' infoboxes show all parties that won seats, although there is some variation. Bondegezou (talk) 17:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're going to go back through all the other election articles and include all parties, then yes. So, realistically, no. The infobox is already huge. EddieHugh (talk) 22:06, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I would prefer a smaller infobox, so let's use the legislative election infobox: much more compact. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, we could perhaps uniquely use the picture infobox for this as it allows up to 9 parties. This is probably the only uk election with exactly this number of groupings elected. 77.101.115.119 (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

All 9 parties will fit in the current infobox. Personally, I think the current infobox is too big and misses the point of an infobox, so I still prefer the legislative one. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Labour to Conservative section

Copeland is listed as being a seat which went from Labour to Conservative, but the Tories won it from Labour in the 2017 by-election, so it was a Conservative hold at the 2017 general election. Theresonator (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I've removed it. Bondegezou (talk) 08:24, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Gains, holds and swings are always compared to the previous general election. B-elections are ignored for this purpose. Copeland was a Conservative gain from Labour compared to 2015. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I see that it's been restored, even though it is factually inaccurate. In the 2017 general election, the seat was not a Labour to Conservative gain, because it was already a Conservative seat, having changed hands at the 2017 by-election. The seat was a Conservative hold. It was held by a Conservative MP before the 2017 election and it was held by a Conservative MP after the 2017 election! Can someone please delete it? Theresonator (talk) 00:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I've deleted it again because it was factually inaccurate. Theresonator (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Source for results

Hi. I notice that the Conservative total vote is different on the BBC [4] because the BBC count the 34299 votes for Speaker John Bercow in his Buckinghamshire constituency. Is this worth a note? Is there a better source for the results data than news outlets such as the BBC? Ewen (talk) 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely worth a note, this issue causes more mistaken edits to the results than anything else. The media results are probably the best for now, there will probably be more academic sources and something from Parliament in time. Warofdreams talk 19:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Please help: Reference for David Davis as motivator for snap election

Within the last two weeks (before 8 June 2017) I read an interview with David Davis (possibly in the Telegraph) where he takes credit for persuading a reluctant Theresa May to call a snap election. His reasoning was that the end phase of the Brexit negotiations in 2019 must not coincide with a British general election campaign, as this would give Brussels negotiators a strong hand ("they would have the UK over a barrel" I think is the phrase he used). It is important to add this background to the Wikipedia article.

Unfortunately however I cannot find the David Davis interview any more, neither via the Telegraph nor via Google. All I have is this more recent Telegraph article briefly "blaming" David Davis,[5] but without the specifics I mentioned above. Any help appreciated. Let us make Wikipedia great again. 86.170.123.79 (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Found the following in the Express of 9 June 2017:[6]

Earlier this morning Mr Davis defended Mrs May’s decision to call a snap election saying it was in the “national interest”. He said: "We had to establish a mandate and secondly we had to have a parliament which gave us time to do the job. "This was an election in the national interest. "People say we wanted a landslide. "It was never about that, it was about the mandate." 86.170.123.5 (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The interview in the Sunday Times on 21 May 2017? 86.170.123.5 (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Footnote about Richmond Park

I see a footnote has been added about Copeland here. Might a similar footnote appended to the 'Liberal Democrat to Conservative' section header help explain to people why the Richmond Park result is not being shown here? Maybe similar footnotes for the two SNP seats and the UKIP seat (these three went independent for differing reasons)? Some of this is covered in the background section, which mentions the various by-elections. Does that cover all the differences between 'seat changes between elections' versus 'seat changes after dissolution'? Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. There's also Manchester Gorton (was Labour, but vacant when election called) and Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) had the Labour whip withdrawn. See List_of_MPs_elected_in_the_United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#By-elections and further down. Bondegezou (talk) 22:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I was just looking at that list! :-) On the same topic, the Conservatives went from 330 in 2015 to 331 before the election (is this the gain of Copeland? Surely they lost Richmond Park, so where is the other loss of a seat? Maybe the Speaker's seat?) and Labour went from 232 to 229 (is this the loss of Copeland, and the resignation of Simon Danczuk and the unresolved status of Manchester Gorton?). The SNP went from 56 to 54 (the two suspended MPs), and the Liberal Democrats went from 8 to 9 (the gain of Richmond Park). Should include the other parties for completeness as well (I know the infobox can only take nine parties, but the article can cover the whole lot). Carcharoth (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

wrong number of conservative seats

the conservatives have 317 seats plus the speaker so its reported as 318 in some outlets. however the wiki page states they have 318 seats not including the speaker which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:7882:b600:6076:f32f:5300:7527 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article does actually say there are 317 Conservative MPs. Not sure which part of it you're referring to. This is Paul (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong in the infobox. It was changed here. It seems the article is seeing lots of new editors (to be fair, I am one of them as I am not that familiar with the Wikipedia conventions on UK political articles) and people are following different conventions and getting confused. I will fix this. Carcharoth (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

This had been corrected but its now wrong again. It now states the conservatives have 317* seats. and then the *appendix states that this includes the speaker which would mean the conservatives have 316 seats but they in-fact have 317

The infobox * note has now been changed to say that John Bercow is not included in the figure of 317. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Date

Suggest including month (June) in the title of the page, as there will likely be another this year. 31.221.37.8 (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be premature, there might be another this year but there may well not be. Can easily move the page if another general election is planned. Warofdreams talk 18:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)