Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2

Dissolution Policy

Please see my proposal in the WikiProject. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Election map

A map has been added to the infobox. It has a large number of insets, text, decorative lines, and empty charts that appear ready to fill in a chloropleth with constituencies shaded by both winner and winner's voteshare. This is a kind of map which has been added over previous, simpler, maps in a number of articles. Please can we consider not using this kind of map? Insets with random levels of zoom do not effectively counteract geographic discrepancy in constituency sizes. They just add another confounding factor while making it harder to read the results by having arbitrary built up areas shuffled around into arbitrary positions. The additional dotted lines to demonstrate inset locations on the map or the Isles of Scilly are part of the St Ives constituency are distracting. Additional charts can be their own graphics, ideally produced with Wikipedia markup so that users of screen readers can understand them—doubling up a map to include extra graphs, numbers and text does not improve it.

Worst of all is having a map with multiple (apparently more or less infinite for the one currently in the infobox) shades of multiple different colours. These are hard to read and hard to interpret. Shaded maps showing levels of support are great for a single party, but with multiple parties winning seats it is an unusable and poor data visualisation technique. I strongly feel that we should be showing a simple geographical map with constituencies that should be coloured in with a single shade of the official colour of the winning party. We can also have a secondary map with equal area geometric representations of constituencies, also coloured with a single shade of the official colour of the winning party. Shaded chloropleths are great for showing distributions of support. Let's have several, elsewhere on the page: one for each party of interest, showing that party's voteshare in each constituency along four or five different shades selected to be accessible to colour-blind readers. That's so much more useful than combining it with winners.

If that sounds sensible to other editors I'm very happy to produce these maps myself. But I do think we should have an idea of what data visualisation we want to see on the page before we end up with more maps that are stuffed with an assortment of information to an extent that they obscure information in the guise of revealing it. Ralbegen (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree with this. The infinite tones of different colours will undoubtedly make the final product very cluttered and hard to read. The main map should be simple and easy to read with solid colours. Quite often with election maps on Wikipedia, people are too focused on cramming every piece of statistical information into one visual representation.

In terms of the map's layout, although I like the consideration of the bodies of water (lakes, rivers, reservoirs etc.), I'm not entirely sure whether it is necessary with an election map; it blurs the borders between constituencies in certain areas (see SW London for example).

Moreover, I think the borders between the constituencies are somewhat flawed in their design. Firstly, the thickness of the borders is very low; when completed with colours it might be difficult to distinguish where the borders are. Secondly, they are white in colour, which not only contributes to the difficulties I've mentioned with the bodies of water, but it also could make it difficult to distinguish where the borders are when throwing the bright party colours into the mix. So, perhaps changing the colour to a dark grey or black and increasing their thickness should be considered.

Finally, I also think the number of insets with different degrees of zoom is quite excessive. Whether they ought to be removed entirely is up for debate. The Wikipedia maps for UK general elections pre-2010 do not have them at all. Post-2010, they focus on the same areas: 1) Belfast, 2) Greater Manchester, Merseyside, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire, 3) South Wales, 4) Scottish Central Belt, 5) North East England, 6) West Midlands, 7) Greater London, 8) South Wessex, Brighton and Hove. For some reason, from 2017 onwards, 9) Aberdeen is added. If we are to keep these insets as a feature of the main map, it should be in line with previous maps, focusing on those areas with a high concentration of constituencies in a smaller area (with a uniform level of zoom). Mapperman03 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

We have previously agreed not to have "empty" maps: that is, maps before the results are out to colour them in. So, until the election, definitely no map. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Very happy to hold off until there are results. I will produce less cluttered versions of the notional results map in the body of the article, though, and hopefully there's a general view that simpler and more direct maps are better practice. Ralbegen (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Great. I very strongly agree that there are too many unreadable election result maps all over Wikipedia. Whatever we use should be readable at the size it is shown in an article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

SDLP in infobox

In the infobox, the SDLP is displaying as Social Democratic and Labour, which makes the infobox overly wide and isn’t how the party is usually referred to. How do we change it to say “SDLP” while maintaining the template colour? Bondegezou (talk) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

it'd have to be changed in the political party module by changing the shortname to SDLP I believe. CipherRephic (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure. I have no idea how to do that! Anyone...? Bondegezou (talk) 09:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! Ralbegen (talk) 09:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ralbegen, it appears to have changed back. Where can I make these edits? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 06:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I get as far as Wikipedia:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes, but then get stuck. Bondegezou (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bondegezou — I did it by editing the source of Module:Political party/S. You have to scroll all the way past the article to get to the editing panel. The editor was GoldRingChip, who also set "SNP" as the short name of the SNP with "Scottish National" and reverted my change. I don't think either of those reflect usage in the vast majority of reliable sources ("Social Democratic and Labour MPs" is a phrase which appears a handful of times compared to "Social Democratic and Labour Party MPs" or "SDLP MPs" (which is introduced in high quality sources without explaining the acronym). The short names as actually used are the acronyms rather than the party names sans "party" and that should be reflected by the encyclopaedia. Ralbegen (talk) 16:50, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

MPs standing down

As there seems to be some contention over this, is it better we create a "List of MPs who stood down at 2024 election" page now? Naturally, with 100+ members having announced their stepping down it will need to be created; we have created such an article for every election since 2010, with the exception of 2017 as not many (only 30 or so) stood down then because it was a very sudden election. This being the first time since 2010-15 a parliament has run its full course, more have announced their retirements in good time. 2A02:C7C:DB33:8300:A5F9:4FE1:BD33:91EB (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the job's been done it’s now on the page entitled Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election; thank you.

Timetable

The timetable includes, under 5 July, the text: "New Ministry expected to be formed." which also comes with a footnote saying "The only likelihood of a ministry not being formed the day after the election is if no party wins a majority and a hung parliament ensues." I removed this and an IP editor has restored, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. I think the text should be removed as (a) this is WP:CRYSTALBALLy, we don't know when this will happen; and (b) no citation is given. What do others think? Bondegezou (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

A citation is given for the timetable overall, but that citation does not include this item. Bondegezou (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bondegezou It may not be in the citation but it's true, no? If a party has a majority they form the government, if they don't then, as in 2010, coalition talks begin DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

But we don't know which of those is going to happen, so it's WP:CRYSTALBALL to present this as the former, with a footnote to the latter. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

If we want to discuss the formation of a new government, we could cite the Cabinet Manual for this, assuming it can be justified under WP:PRIMARY:

2.10 The application of these principles depends on the specific circumstances and it remains a matter for the Prime Minister, as the Sovereign’s principal adviser, to judge the appropriate time at which to resign, either from their individual position as Prime Minister or on behalf of the government. Recent examples suggest that previous Prime Ministers have not offered their resignations until there was a situation in which clear advice could be given to the Sovereign on who should be asked to form a government. It remains to be seen whether or not these examples will be regarded in future as having established a constitutional convention.

 M2Ys4U ^(talk) 12:46, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that gives us a date and it's all getting rather WP:SYNTHy. We don't have to put everything on the timetable. Some things are a bit uncertain or complicated. They can just be left off the timetable and, if we wish, discussed elsewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we should not include this line. Ralbegen (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Predictions........ before the vote

AS with the pervious election pages I dare say we will have these again but what I would liked to suggest is we have it as follows:

• Predictions Four weeks before the vote
• Predictions two weeks before the vote
• Predictions one weeks before the vote
• Final predictions

Difference being Three weeks moving to four to give a better gap: Crazyseiko (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the amount of space given to these in the last article defies due weight. Let's take our cue from reliable sources: when do they single out a time to take a snapshot of predictions? Which predictions are made by reputable media organisatins and which are done by bloggers with scant secondary coverage? No matter what we end up going for, we should be aiming at smaller, tighter coverage of seat predictions than the 2019 article ended up with. Ralbegen (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Your ignoring 2017 and 2015 ones which ALSO had this set up but with date points.? --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I also think that those articles dedicate more space to seat prediction tables than is justified by reliable source coverage! Ralbegen (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I'd support this, but I suppose we'll be crossing that bridge when we come to it. It may be worth having a discussion as to which predictions to include and which not to beforehand. CipherRephic (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I current have a Shortlist (includes many which were USED over the past few elections) which people could look at over the course of next week and we could then pick the best or all if they need be for the first rought date of 4th June for Predictions Four weeks before the vote? --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think we generally need fewer tables and more prose. We’re meant to be an encyclopaedia. Encyclopaedias use words. We can have these tables of predictions if editors want them, but we should be discussing the significance of predictions throughout the campaign, with reference to reliable sources having those discussions. Bondegezou (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

we better get rid of all the graphic, pics etc if that is the case.

Anyways here is the short list:

• https://electionmaps.uk/nowcast
• https://britainelects.com/
• https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
• https://principalfish.co.uk/electionmaps/?map=predictit
• https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49061-yougov-mrp-labour-now-projected-to-win-over-400-seats
• https://ko-fi.com/electionmapsuk which is of course: https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK
• https://www.electionpolling.co.uk/

Here is the template:

Predictions Five weeks before the vote

Parties		PrincipalFish as of 30 May 2024	ElectionMapsUK as 30 May 2024	Election polling as 30 May 2024	Financial times as 30 May 2024	THe Economist as 30 May 2024	Survation as 30 May 2024	Polling Report as 30 May 2024	Electoral calculus as 30 May 2024
	Labour Party	472	467	397	451	388	468	393	476
	Conservatives	101	101	186	134	187	98	192	66
	Liberal Democrats	35	46	29	27	22	22	28	59
	SNP	16	12	14	16	24	41	17	26
	Plaid Cymru	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	3
	Green Party	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
	Reform UK" |	0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
	Others	21	19	19	19	19	19	19	19
Overall result (probability)		Labour majority 294	Labour majority	Labour majority 144	Labour majority	Labour majority	Labour majority	Labour majority	Labour majority

References

First election for King Charles III

There seems to be a war as to whether this is included. As the original editor has notice there is precedent (cf 1955 United Kingdom general election), and it is as relevant as as it being the first election since Brexit, in terms of setting a historical context. Please can we restore it. Hoffie01 (talk) 11:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the key points in the article. Reliable sources tell us what the key points are. Reliable sources, of which there are a large number, are not talking about the election being the first in Charles III's reign. It is clearly not a key fact about the election. Ergo, it should not be in the lead.

The role of the monarch was somewhat different in 1955. I don't feel able to comment on the appropriateness of such content in that article's lead. Bondegezou (talk) 12:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Fully agree - though it appears a vandal may have done the work for us already. CipherRephic (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the point about following what reliable sources say (I'm sure BBC News mentioned it being the first election under Charles III while I was watching their live coverage of the Prime Minister's announcement but it was probably just a passing mention), but I'd like to point out to @Bondegezou that the role of the monarch has not changed since 1955. Charles' powers are the same as Elizabeth's were. It is perhaps true that the public perception of the monarch's role which has changed, but not the actual role of the monarchy.

If reliable sources start mentioning it prominently, we absolutely should include this factoid. As it stands, it's just a largely irrelevant passing comment. Adam Black ^{t • c} 23:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, it deserves to be mentioned, but not in the lead, and not with a large amount of trivial embellishment. GenevieveDEon (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy for it to be mentioned elsewhere. Maybe the Background section would be appropriate? Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I’d agree with this proposal. OGBC1992 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that it's best included somewhere. A mention of the first or last general election under a certain monarch has in several articles been mentioned in the final paragraph of the lede (eg. 1935, 1951, 1955, 2019). I wouldn't be opposed to it being in the background, but I believe its best if its in the same place in each article. estar8806 (talk) ★ 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A brief mention ("the first general election during the reign of Charles III" or similar) would fit in well in the lede, alongside the other firsts. Constitutionally relevant. But no more than that: yesterday it had an explanation that Charles had taken over following his mum's death whenever that was, which was a bit much. Moscow Mule (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

In addition to this being the first General Election of the present reign, I request a correction is made to the common error that the Prime Minister advises the Sovereign to grant a Dissolution. The Prime Minister can only REQUEST a Dissolution of the Sovereign, and this is laid out quite clearly by Constitutional experts, both living and dead, along with the reasons why.

Newsflash almost nobody cares about who sits on the golden throne with stolen jewels bring on the republic

The conduct and result of the election is in no way determined or influenced by this factoid. It is more relevant that it is the first election called by a drenched PM who was being heckled by a boom box. Also thoughly irrelevant that it is the first since Brexit or the repeal of the Dissolution Act. Far more relevant that it is the first since the Truss lunacy, the first in which one of the main leaders hoping to be Prime Minister has been fined for breaching the law in a manner related to his role in government, and the first since the Rwanda project. The July factoid is incredibly tedious too: there are 12 months in the year, so 2 out of 21 elections being in a particular month is exactly what anyone might expect. Kevin McE (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The edit warring over this has gone on long enough, earlier discussions appear to indicate a consensus on keeping the info in the article but moving it to the background section. I'll thus be doing so, unless anyone has any particular objections? CipherRephic (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

There appears to be a persistent IP editor who keeps adding this to the lead. The appropriate response is to treat this as disruptive editing, promptly revert them and seek a ban. Bondegezou (talk) 06:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have a particular objection. Nobody has even attempted to give any reason why either the occupant of the throne, nor the number of elections to have been held during the current reign, is of any relevance at all. Constitutionally, it is relevant that there is a monarch, but the identity of that post-holder and the amount of time they have been there changes absolutely nothing in terms of the election itself. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate personal attack, please do not respond Adam Black t • c 23:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have a royal sycophant here^— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7c:db33:8300:b44c:a60a:8b92:21 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Lucy Allan - Reform?

Lucy Allan recently left the Conservative Party and endorsed a Reform UK candidate in the election. We counted her as an independent MP. The i now reports she is discussing being a Reform UK candidate. I take that to be sufficient to show her as being in Reform UK and thus for Reform UK to have 2 MPs at dissolution, given dissolution is tomorrow. But it’s a messy situation, so I’ve made that edit, but happy to discuss. This also has implications for how we edit her own page, the House of Commons template and the Reform UK article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I can't get through that article because of the paywall, but it looks like all the claims that she might stand from Reform come from someone anonymous within Reform. This BBC article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkzv12wndo doesn't include those claims, and I think it's reasonable to suggest that the i's source is not reliable or neutral. If she had actually crossed the floor to Reform, that would be clearly stated in multiple news sources at this point, as it was when Lee Anderson did it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that we should hold off until/unless a reliable secondary source is explicit about it. Ralbegen (talk) 18:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Regional UK election maps of 2024

Please can SVG election maps with the updated boundaries for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and each of the nine regions of England be created please as we only have currently really have National maps only available at this time. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

All data in ‘2024 United Kingdom general election’ table is wrong.

The sub heading says it’s for the 2024 election. This is wrong. All that data should be listed for the 2019 election. There is no data yet for the 2024 election. Either change the sub heading to say it’s the results of the 2019 election, or remove the table completley, or input all the parties with zero as their number of seats … and update after the election. 94.105.120.41 (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I take it you mean the infobox? Yes, I agree we could be clearer that this is showing the Commons at dissolution. Could we add some wording to that effect? Bondegezou (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve added some explanatory text. Do people think that’s better?

Another option is to have an “empty” infobox that doesn’t show any MP numbers. Bondegezou (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Technically, from the moment of dissolution, there are no MPs, so I guess there cannot be numbers of current MPs Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Correct, dissolution formally takes place today so technically after today (May 30) there are no MP’s please can the election info box be changed to reflect, also we need more of the election maps updating to reflect the new boundaries. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

The text has already been changed to say these were the figures at dissolution. Bondegezou (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

That is no longer sufficient as election infobox shows the current number of MP’s. Well there are now no current MP’s, we should now be using a infobox with images of the main party leaders in line with previous elections. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC))

Notional result table Workers Party?!

The table of notional results now claims that the Workers Party won a notional seat in 2019. This is nonsense. Has someone been vandalising the page? Can we work out when that got added and whether any other errors were added? Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Added here by an IP editor whose edits have mostly been about Workers Party candidate Wayne Adlem. They also moved the Workers Party in the infobox, which has been reverted. Ralbegen (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Background section much too long

We've already got links at the top of the Background section to the articles for the Johnson, Truss, and Sunak premierships. We don't need blow-by-blow accounts of the collapse of the Truss government in this article. (Certain IP editors are also fond of wordy turns of phrase, which is further padding a long section.) I'm reluctant to cut large swathes of it without discussion, but the whole thing should be cut back to 2-3 short paragraphs. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It just needs an overview of Johnson's last premiership, a paragraph on Truss' which should be befittingly brief, and a slightly more in-depth look at the last year or so, and similar for the opposition of course. As you say, further information is linked. Irltoad (talk) 07:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I've trimmed it a bit, but it could definitely still be a lot shorter. I feel that the material on local elections is repetitive and possibly largely redundant. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, plus much of the content in the background section lacks references. CipherRephic (talk) 10:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We definitely need sources, especially for some of the stuff that's now being added to the campaign section. GenevieveDEon (talk) 16:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the shorter version looks a lot better. Further information is linked and fits better on the linked articles than here. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

We've already got a good amount on Northern Ireland, Scotland and England/the main parliamentary parties. Should we have a brief bit on Wales, eg the recent travails of Welsh Labour? A sentence or two including Drakeford's resignation and Gething's victory would be enough, I think, along with the SNP leadership changes and the state of the DUP. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, including a sentence or two on Wales would complete the background section. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

phrasing in the intro

Hi all, reading through the intro I found some of the phrasing (particularly in the last paragraph) to be a bit stilted and hard to parse. I've had a crack at changing some of the more egregious examples, but i'm interested in what other people think on this topic? CipherRephic (talk) 23:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"The results of the 2019 general election are given below"

Any particular reason why the results of the last election are linked in the background section? None of the other general election articles do this. For the sake of consistency, we should either not have the table here or have tables on all previous general elections. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:OTHERCONTENT, a simple statement of "other pages do/don't do this" is not a convincing argument. Especially when you're comparing past and future elections, which is a false equivalence. --TedEdwards 19:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Elections that have happened are different to elections that are forthcoming, thus their articles look different. Elections that have happened can and do show the change from the previous election in their results section. We can't do that here as we don't have any results yet! The previous result is always relevant and included, just in different ways. Bondegezou (talk) 21:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Alright, makes a lot of sense. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Candidate details

A large amount of this article at present -- maybe half? -- consists of various large tables about candidates not standing again, candidates moving constituency, candidates who used to be MPs etc. This seems to me like too much focus on minutiae rather than on the core narrative of the election.

We already have a spin-off Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election article. Could we move some or all of the current content here to that article? What say people? Bondegezou (talk) 09:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Please, yes. I like having the information but I having so many bulky lists is not good for the main election article. Ralbegen (talk) 09:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's in danger of getting a bit crowded and there could probably be a better home for it, likely the spin-off page you have suggested. As much as I think the list of candidates standing down is the most relevant, there is precedent for having an entirely separate article just for this information - 2019, 2017, 2015 and 2010. I don't know if this should be created now or post-election though? OGBC1992 (talk) 10:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Although actually 2017's list remains as part of the wider Election article, rather than being its own article. The others have distinct articles. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to discuss different options. My initial thought was to include up to the table labelled "Number of MP retirements by party affiliation", but then move everything else out of this article. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that would probably be fine. My impulse, as I say, would be to keep the table of retirements on this article and move all the tables beyond that, certainly for now while it's still being added to, but that's just a personal preference. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Given support here, I have moved all of these tables, except the table of retirements. I would also favour moving the table of retirements, but left that while there was a lack of unanimity on the matter. Bondegezou (talk) 08:09, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

This is looking better now, but at present the long list of individual MPs not standing for re-election is still in the main article, and there's a long sentence in the body text describing which lists are in the separate article, which might be better as a hatnote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, I've left the list of MPs not standing for re-election as the above discussion was not unanimous on moving it. We can continue that discussion and move or not move it later. Feel free to edit the sentence describing what is in the separate article. Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't checked the edit history - that wasn't meant to be a dig at you. Your revisions are good, and I'm not criticising the wording of the longer 'see also' - it's more a stylistic thing that those sorts of texts are better as notes than body text, but I don't feel confident enough with the appropriate style for hatnotes to make the change myself. Personally I strongly favour keeping only the summary table (and possibly re-adding summary tables for other changes), and moving every detail table to the other article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I would just like to add support for removing the list of retiring MPs from the article and keeping only the summary table. Even with the others removed it is by far the most prominent part of the article. It's a good detail to have, but the summary table would be the right amount of weight to apportion to it. Ralbegen (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I think most people here were in favour of keeping the summary table, which has now gone as well as the list. What's the best way we can cross-include it from the candidates article so that both can be updated together? A template? Ralbegen (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Next time, make it separate from the start

Given the all those (very crufty, IMO) lists have now been hived off into separate articles, is it reasonable to ask whether they should ever have been in this article at all? The fact that they have been removed is an indication that they did not have a long-term place here from day one, and therefore under the principle of the ten year rule should never have been here ( they seem to me to be a symptom of the "I have heard something on the news, I must edit Wikipedia" reflex).

But if there is a place for such gatherings of factoids, and if they are destined to have their own article eventually, should that not be the case from the start? Of course Wikipedia articles can get split into a more manageable collection of articles in a topic as they grow, but I am ot aware of any principle whereby sub-topics are to be grown within an article with the full knowledge that they will eventually be subdivided. Just as there will, soon after 4th July, be Next UK general elektion article (misspelled deliberately to avoid linking back to this) started, could and should there not be a Candidates at the next UK general election started simultaneously? Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

That sounds sensible. Of course, there may not be any material for such a fork article immediately, but the replacement 'next election' article should contain a hidden note to editors directing them to create that fork rather than add such tables to the main article. For what it's worth, as an historical researcher, I have previously found it very useful to know who was a candidate for whom at long-past elections, so I think this stuff will survive the ten year rule - but I appreciate your caution. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

There are no "Current seats"

The infobox heading of "Current seats" should say "Previous seats" or "Old number of seats"? There are no current seats as all MPs have ceased to be MPs on the dissolution of Parliament. Every party therefore currently has 0 seats. Nonetheless, this wouldn't be a helpful presentation to show all parties at zero. Therefore the heading should refer to the seats they have most recently had (but don't currently have). aspaa (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I tried to tell them this yesterday @aspaa but at the moment no one seems to listern. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC))

@Aspaa: I've just seen your message and I made an edit so that column says "Seats". Unfortunately you can't change the name of that column to anything else unless you edit Template:Infobox legislative election to allow this, and I doubt that would be worth it. --TedEdwards 01:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What is the significance of seats at dissolution?

Hi.

I started a topic a few days ago, which somewhat also concerned this issue, but I didn't feel I got my point through, so I'll try to put it here.

I'm not really familiar with arguments behind the infobox informing about the distribution of seats on the dissolution. Why is this considered more important than each party's latest election result? Why are we not informing about the latest election's result in the infobox?

The media rarely talks about current seats, and I do not know a single media outlet who is going to compare the results of the upcoming election with the seats that each party had at the dissolution. On the contrary, the media compares GAINS and HOLDS to the last election result. People is, in my view, more likely to come to the page, to see how many seats each party got at the last election. After all, this is still what we are gonna compare the 2024 results to.

I'm not thinking that seats at dissolution is irrelevant information, I just think it belongs further down the page or at the House of Commons page.

So I just wanted to understand why the current decision is to have seats at dissolution being such a main thing of the page.

Have a nice evening 😊 Thomediter (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

"On the contrary, the media compares GAINS and HOLDS to the last election result." I really do not believe that the media does that at all. If (as it surely will) Labour wins the constituency of Blackpool South (a recent by-election gain, won by Conservatives in 2019) it will be considered a Labour hold by all main outlets. Swing, nationally, may be compared to the last election, but not holds and gains. Kevin McE (talk) 08:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

"I really do not believe that the media does that at all."

However this is the case, for at least Sky and the House of Commons official website.

House of Commons Library calls it "gain", even though the tories held the seat as a result of the by-election [1].

I can't post Youtube, but if you go on Youtube, you can see that Sky News calls Brecon and Radnoshire a "CON HOLD", despite the seat prior to the election being Lib Dems. Video is "The Brexit Election: Part 3 (3am-6am)" and the constituency is visible at 40:27 in the video. Thomediter (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The media often compare gains/losses to the last election, ignoring by-elections/defections, and that's what our results tables in general election articles do. Sometimes, however, the media do compare to the situation at dissolution, so accounting for by-elections/defections. There isn't unanimity in the approach. To complicate things, after boundary changes, the media normally compare to the notional results at the last election. I expect Tim Farron will win Westmorland and Lonsdale, as he did in 2019, and yet it will be reported as a LibDem gain because the notional result for the new boundaries makes it a 2019 Conservative win.

More broadly, the media do pay attention to by-elections and defections in their election coverage. Even if they are more often comparing gains/losses to the last election, they will talk about by-election wins and defections. Galloway winning, Anderson defecting, these attracted considerable media attention in the run-up to the election being called.

We have a table in the background section describing the 2019 results and subsequent changes. That seems appropriate to me. It shows both sets of figures. However, Thomediter raises the question around the infobox. Infobox discussions are frequent and fraught! I can live with the infobox either showing the state at dissolution or just the 2019 results, although I think the former is preferable. We could also switch to an "empty" infobox that doesn't list any parties, which we had for periods in the run-up to the 2019 election. Bondegezou (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To me, this currently seems more like a discussion about the infobox, than answering my first question (this is also partly my fault for swaying the topic that way). I am still interested in the arguments for showcasing seats at dissolution as the main thing of the page.

I think that an infobox is good to have, so I do think we should keep one with the parties. But I really struggle to see, why information about the parliament on May 30 is more important than the latest election result. When it's election night, the show will tell viewers about some of the defections/by-elections that has happended in the latest period, but it will be a secondary or tertiary thing. The main thing the media will talk about, and comapre the results to, is going to be the latest election result. Therefore I really believe, that readers will have a larger interest in seeing how the parties did at the latest election, instead of how the parliament looked before the election campaign started. I don't see how there being 17 Independent MP's at the dissolution is such a major thing, that it has to be in the infobox. The media is very unlikely to talk about all of these defections. Thomediter (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Do they currently have seats, or not?

We have the current number of seats held for each political party, in the House of Commons. Yet, on the separate party pages, we list 'no' seats. Why the inconsistencies? GoodDay (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Are you talking about this article's infobox? It's "at dissolution". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: I've recently done a somewhat counterintiutive edit so the infobox now says "seats". With the text in the infobox it should be clear that these are seats at dissolution. --TedEdwards 01:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

There is no current seats as Parliament is dissolved. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC))

@MOTORAL1987: I know there aren't any current seats. That's why I changed the infobox so it says "seats", not "current seats" with a previously written note at the top saying it's the number of seats at dissolution. That's also why I said what I said two lines up. So it's clear those numbers are seats at dissolution. --TedEdwards 13:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, it's handled differently at the Canadian Parliament. We keep them as current seats, in both the 'active' election page & party infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

BTW - Within this article itself, there's inconsistency with the numbers at dissolution. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Thank you for alerting us to that inconsistency, where it says there are 345 Conservative seats, 206 Labour seats and 15 independent seats in the infobox, but 344 Conservative seats, 205 Labour seats and 17 independent seats in Template:UK House of Commons composition, which is transcluded onto this page in the background section. I will try to find the reason for this, and which figures are correct, but if any editors know why this is the case, please correct it. --TedEdwards 16:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I think this is about Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who was suspended from Labour just before Parliament was dissolved, so there's been some uncertainty and conflicting editing about how to count him. I think we should count him as gone, so Labour 205 is more accurate, but I've not edited the infobox to allow for further discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Trying to mine through the edit histories of various articles trying to find where the discrepancy started and why, but it's three separate articles (including List of MPs elected in the 2019 United Kingdom general election, where at the bottom it gives same figures as the composition template). And at dissolution the numbers were already different. But the Russell-Moyle thing Bondegezou pointed out is plausible. --TedEdwards 13:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

So at start of 28 May, all 3 had 345 Conservative and 205 Labour. Infobox said 15 independents but that's definitely incorrect as the numbers don't add to 650, so must have been 16 independents at the time, as said by composition template and party totals in List of MPs article. Since 28 May and before dissolution, Mark Logan defected from Tories to being an independent (may be confusion as he supports Labour, but I can't see evidence he took Labour whip. And the defection was announced after dissolution), Diane Abbott regained the Labour whip and Lloyd Russell-Moyle, as Bondegezou said, lost the whip. So maybe 344 Conservative, 205 Labour and 17 independents (so composition template is correct)? I will look more into how the discrepancy actually arose though. --TedEdwards 13:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

So I found this on the parliament website, saying what the state of parliament on 29 May was, the last date were that website says there were MPs. The numbers there are the same as in the infobox. However that website I think says before dissolution that Lloyd Russell-Moyle and Mark Logan were respectively Labour and Conservative MPs. If they became independent shortly before dissolution, the numbers would be the same as in the composition template. --TedEdwards 16:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle became an independent very shortly before dissolution and this change wasn't noted by the Parliament website, but was been noted by secondary sources, so I think we should count it. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

England listed as "UK" in the 2024 United Kingdom general election debates in Great Britain section

I've not changed it as there might be some reasoning behind it being listed as such, but each location (Salford, Grimsby, York, and Nottingham) is in England, which is a constituent country of the UK. This is in contrast to both Wales and Scotland being listed separately on the infobox. Is there any reasoning behind this or should I change it? SirDoor (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Changed it, revert if this is the wrong course of action. SirDoor (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The STV debate and the BBC debate on 21 June are focused specifically on Scotland and Wales, respectively, whereas the other debates are UK/GB-wide. They're not specifically England-only even though they take place in England - the SNP and Plaid Cymru are invited to some of them so they're clearly not English-only debates.  M2Ys4U ^(talk) 15:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Alright, reverted my change SirDoor (talk) 16:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

12 June Sky debate not a debate

In the Debates section, we list a 12 June Sky News event. However, this is not a debate. The two party leaders are being interviewed separately.[2] I suggest we remove this or add a note explaining the difference. Bondegezou (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Error that needs fixing

Background section says "The Conservative Party changed leader twice during the 2019 -2024 parliament" as Boris Johnson was the leader who led the party in the last election. By that logic, the sentence "The SNP also changed leader three times" should be changed to "The SNP also changed leader twice" as Nicola Sturgeon led the SNP in the last election. 150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

This has now been fixed. Bondegezou (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Notional Map - relates to revised proposals rather than the actual final constituencies

The notional result map does not actually relate to the final boundaries - Wimbledon near me is a completely different configuration to its final one and the seat names in Croydon are wrong - this will no doubt cause issues in quite a few areas. Trimfrim20 (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

We are in desperate need for both reconfigured, national and regional results maps for the 2024 Election (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC))

Display Speaker separately under "Predictions: A month before the vote"?

I was wondering if it would make sense to display the 1 seat of the Speaker separately from "Other" under the section mentioned in the title considering the other 18 seats seem to all be Northern Irish seats and there appears to be no clarification that the Speaker is included in this count. I suggest adding either a note in the "Other" field or adding a separate row for the Speaker. Anondoggo (talk) 09:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Rhun ap Iorwerth / Liz Saville Roberts

I've recently noticed that the name of the leader of Plaid Cymru, as given in the Debates section, has been repeatedly reverted from the correct 'ap Iorwerth' to the incorrect 'Rhun'. This seems to be in line with Rhun ap Iorwerth's Wikipedia article, which bizarrely insists on referring to him throughout on a first-name basis, presumably from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Welsh language and Welsh naming conventions.

Without going into great detail on all that, suffice it to say that the BBC, as well as dozens of Welsh newspapers, refer to the Plaid Cymru leader as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' rather than 'Rhun' or 'Mr Rhun'. And if that isn't sufficient proof, his own party's website likewise refers to him, correctly and consistently, as 'Mr ap Iorwerth' in both its English-language and Welsh-language articles. Presumably one can trust Plaid Cymru to get their leader's name correct?

On the other hand, the name of the party's Westminster leader is, at time of writing, given in the same table as 'Roberts'. In this instance, her Wikipedia article correctly identifies her double-barrelled surname, 'Saville Roberts', and this should be replicated in the Debates table here. 150.143.153.242 (talk) 00:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I have edited his article to use ap Iorwerth, as that is what reliable sources, including Welsh ones, do. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn or disowned candidates

We should have a section for candidates who loose the support of their party now that nominations have closed. There is a precedent for this.

Here is a table with the first example.

Candidate	Party		Constituency	Reason for withdrawal	Date
Rahman Sharifah		Plaid Cymru	Cardiff South and Penarth	Plaid Cymru withdrew support due to social media posts about the "situation in the Middle East"	7 June

Kalamikid (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC) Kalamikid (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election page would be a good place for this! Ralbegen (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree Candidates in the 2024 United Kingdom general election is probably the best place for it, and for it already being quite long. Seems 2019 is the outlier, with previous elections not having such a table. DankJae 10:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Debate viewing figures

The 7-way BBC Debate was watched by 3.2M people https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bbc-angela-rayner-penny-mordaunt-labour-daisy-cooper-b2559158.html 2A02:C7C:823D:F200:32D2:D0E0:C2CB:2658 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2024

Add after it will also be the first to take place under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022. a reference to be the first election called by or taking place with Charles III as Sovereign AlexMayE96 (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 23:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

And undone, as it has been the subject of much discussion here and consensus has been to place it in the background, not in the lead. Kevin McE (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2024

The infobox contains two sentences which should not be added until after the election. They read This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. Those sentences should be removed, as they are factually inaccurate until the election actually takes place. 64.66.123.248 (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Annoyingly, i think that's an integral part of the legislative election infobox template which would need fixing by someone with template level permisson and can't be done page-side (at least for now) CipherRephic (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)