Talk:2005 Livingston by-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Swing

I know some say that you should only use Swings when comparing Labour and Conservative results, but isn't it silly to say there is a +3% swing to Labour when their share of the vote is sharply down, and the share of the vote of the main challenger is up quite a bit, especially when their is no caption with it explaining that it is a Con to Lab swing? Other articles such as results from the 2005 general election in Scottish constituencies use the method which in this case would result in a 10.2% swing from Lab to SNP. Since this method is used in other articles, it should apply here. MM2K 13:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The BBC say a 10.2% swing to the SNP [1]. This is also being discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies and Talk:Newbury by-election, 1993. --Vclaw 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add my tuppence, I completely agree with you two; while nationaly a swing between the Conservatives and Labour is the most useful concept, within an indivdual constiuency its often an irrelevance. --Neo 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that swing is only meaningful between Labour and the Tories is one that David Boothroyd has been pushing since 1996 or before. See this post from uk.politics. It may, just, still be true for a UK general election but for by-elections, and regional elections the swing between the top two parties is very interesting. --Cavrdg 18:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that only a labour/tory swing has any relevence seems barking mad to me. Let me give a more extreme example. By the above logic Upper Bann had a 0% swing at the last election. How does that represent even remotely what happened in that seat?

Swing should be between the top two candidates/parties. Obviously this means that on a UK national basis Tory/Conservative is the basis used, but in the Upper Bann case it would be UUP to DUP swing on 8.1%. Does this reflect what happened across the province and thus add relevent information? yes, it does. Would a 0% swing between Labour and Conservative actually give any information? No it wouldn't therefore it is a pointless model. The swing shown should be the top two canditates ie from Labour to SNP. MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 19:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I have been in and out of this discussion on Wiki for a while. Formal calculation of swing between the Labour and Conservative parties is the "academic" way of working out changes in general elections. However we all know the Southwark byelection was talked about as a 20-odd percentage swing to the Liberals, and Newbury and Christchurch in similar ways. For Livingston it is frankly barking to suggest the swing was to or from the Tories when they are in fourth; the facts show a positive swing to the SNP in second, so surely any thing else is academic pedantry? doktorb 09:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Livingston by-election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821060012/http://www.by-elections.co.uk/livingston05.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/livingston05.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]