Talk:Politics of Cornwall

Issues (2007)

I'm sorry but I find this unacceptable for a general Cornwall politics article in an encyclopedia. This is nationalist overkill. Of the six narrative sections five are primarily about nationalism, and nationalism conceived in terms of constitutionality and identity. I think if you ask the man in Market Jew Street what matters to him Cornwall's constitutional status and ethnicity will be low on his list: try health service, affordable housing,jobs, water bills...

Dear god, even the communist party (the what? who? where?) gets a mention because it apparently backs an assembly for Cornwall. But then a by-election for Camborne town council figured in a Cornwall politics article previously.

I am minded to rewrite the narrative completely. Of course there might be a case for a separate article dedicated to nationalist politics and groups and websites in Cornwall.

Sorry if this sounds cross, but, oh dear... Crococolana 21:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this article was very poorly written and structured, and ommited some very important areas while going indepth into issues which already have plenty of space on more specific articles. There is no need for a separate article about the nationalist politics, there are already several.

I've had a go are restructuring the article, cutting the crap that doesn't belong here, starting sections on local representation and administration, history, and other issues. Perhaps somebody could expand it with more on social issues, etc. The article needs a lot more in the way of citing sources though, and remember that anything you add should be referenced. Social issues should preferably be backed up with statistics, surveys, etc, and where possible should be comparative, both with other parts of the UK, and with historical situations. Joe D (t) 00:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The nationalist stuff should stay, however, your point sticks. There should be more things on the non-nationalist side. --MacRusgail 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Cornwall is a county in South West England whose politics is influenced by a number of issues that make it distinct from the general political scene in the wider UK, and the political trends of neighbouring counties."

This is patently untrue. Other counties have small single interest groups on their county, district, town and parish councils. The fact that the Cornish ones claim some vague nationalist leanings does not make politics any more distinct from any other locality in the UK. Should Bootle be given this "distinct from the general political scene" tribute as it once has a "monster raving looney" councillor?Serpren 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite attempts to label MK the loonies, their electoral success - when one looks at the figures was much better than the much trumpeted UKIP. MK doesn't even get a look in with a TV broadcast, and it can't, because there aren't enough seats in Cornwall, for the Brits to give them one. --MacRusgail 16:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Two of the main influencing factors in Cornish politics is the disputed position of Cornwall as separate constitutional entity within the UK and the rights of the Cornish people as a minority"

Totally incorect! If this was a "main influencing factor", then Mebyon Kernow would have got more than the 1.4% of votes in the seats in which it put up candidates for Westminster in 2005. As the UKIP got 5% of the vote it would be more correct to say that independence from Europe is a "main influencing factor" in Cornish politics. Even at district level Mebyon Kernow only managed to get (their highest ever total) 7 out of 249 seats (2.8% of seats)

As things stand "nationalism" is very much a minority interest, one which is overblown by those trying to make it into something it is not. 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

For starters, MK is actually there. However, the campaign for a Cornish assembly has far wider support (much higher than Devonwall), and there are many manifestations of a kind of Cornish patriotism, such as the flying of the flag, the re-emergence of the language in various places etc. --MacRusgail 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, as stated, MK get betweem 1.4% and 2.8 % of votes at election, and therefore deserve recognition here along the percentage of votes they acrue.

As for the "assembly" that is a different kettle of fish, one that has been hotly debated elswhere, and should be kept its own Wiki page, not re-raised here. People do not come to encyclopedias looking for the wishes and dreams of others, they come looking for actuality, fact, and reason. Serpren 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and the fact is that MK have more councillors in Cornwall, than UKIP. The Monster RLP do not stand for self-determination for Bootle (!), and there is no historical precendence for that, let alone an indigenous population which traditionally considers itself non-English. MRLP stand/stood throughout the UK anyway. Not a valid comparison, if only because they are meant as consciously comedy candidates. --MacRusgail 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Why were the election results for 2005 and 2007, which I inserted to give a sense of proportion, removed? Serpren 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you not sign your contributions? --MacRusgail 19:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of the need to sign contributions, how do I do it, and why is this necesary?Serpren 00:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just add ~~~~ after your comment and a name and date will be generated automatically. This is common practice throughout wikipedia, and is used in order to make discussions easier to follow, especially where they involve more than two parties (as here) or where a discussion is reignited after months, as often happens. The signed comments then stand as an indelible record of what has been said before, and by whom, and also allow what has already been decided in terms of consensus on an article's structure to be more easily seen. Hope this helps Mammal4 13:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Serpren, I have dropped a welcome pack on your user discussion page which has links to useful things and explains the rules under which Wikipedia works. Take care Mammal4 13:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, I will endevour to play by the rules. Serpren 00:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointing?

"It is a peninsula, pointing away from London, " is this really relevant, truthful even or worthy of inclusion? Serpren (talk) 05:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's technically true, but I would rephrase it - something like "Cornwall is a peninsula, extending into the Atlantic" or something like that. Of course, there's the Isles of Scilly, which are properly Cornish (despite attempts to hive them off), and they don't count this way.--MacRusgail (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

UKIP claims

I believe that UKIP got fewer councillors throughout the UK, than MK did in Cornwall. UKIP got one in Cornwall, which is a fraction of MK's seven or so.--MacRusgail 10:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

New Shadow Minister for Cornwall

On 26 July 2007 the Conservative party appointed Mark Prisk as Shadow Minister for Cornwall. This was to put the Duchy's concerns "at the heart of Conservative thinking", according to a party statement. Conservative Party leader David Cameron said he wholeheartedly endorsed the appointment and it would ensure that the voice of Cornwall is heard, possibly paving the way for a future Cornish Assembly. [1]

Surely this "possibly paving the way for a future Cornish Assembly" is pure hopeful speculation on behalf of the nationalists? Does it have any place here? The "youtube" video it links to has no mention of Prisk's selection having anything to do with "and\ assembly" I shall delete that part of the quote should no one object.Serpren 12:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it "hopeful speculation", so much as recognition, and a very positive step. I think you forget that Wales once had to scramble for such recognition - look where it is now. --MacRusgail 16:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It may be "recognition", but there is NOTHING to support this fantasy that Prisk's becoming "shadow minister for Cornwall" has anything to do with "a future Cornish assembly" and unless this fact changes the supposition should be removed.Serpren 10:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Cornish nationalism

Hang about here?

Two of the main influencing factors in Cornish politics is the disputed position of Cornwall as separate constitutional entity within the UK and the rights of the Cornish people as a minority [2].

Anyone following the link above will come to a poorly supported online poll about the 2011 census.

"I will refuse to fill out the 2011 UK census unless there is a Cornish ethnicity tick box option but only if 1,000 other people will do the same." Deadline to sign up by: 1st January 2011

429 people have signed up, 571 more needed

Can anyone tell me how this is supposed to be substantiative evidence of; "the main influencing factors in Cornish politics is the disputed position of Cornwall as separate constitutional entity within the UK and the rights of the Cornish people as a minority " ???

The link should be removed, and / or real substantiative evidence put in its place. Failing that the point should be deleted. Serpren 12:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Politicians

Removed;

Dick Cole: Why is only one county councillor worthy of mention? Shouldn't we have all or none?

Dr James Whetter: Why is one minor party leader, who has never been elected to a postition, given and none other? Does he really qualify as a politician?

David Penhaligon: Why only this one deceased politician? Why not all dead Cornish politicians?

Serpren 12:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Dick Cole - only party leader on the council; Whetter - less notable, but fairly well known in the Duchy as a publisher of political material; Penhaligon - extremely notable Cornish politician who was seen in his time as being "up and coming", and probably destined for much greater things (Liberal leadership?) if he had survived. --MacRusgail 16:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

What the hell does Dick's being "the only party leader" on the council have to do with anything?

There are equally well known Cornsish politicians as Penhaliagan, who did more than aspire to be "up and coming".

Whetter is unknown outside of the nationalist circles.

This whole page smacks of desperation and is nothing more than an ill supported minority agenda.Serpren 10:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. Penhaligon was extremely well known in his time. Perhaps you should add politicians from the "major" parties to the list. Oh wait, didn't you remove the Lib Dems, Tories and Labour people from it? --MacRusgail 20:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the article

There are some major POV concerns about this article so i have added the POV tag for the time being. Entire sections have some problems, but there are clear examples where there is bias of incorrect / misleading information. I would hope everyone here accepts there are problems and doesnt remove the tags, people need to know there are some problems thanks. Just one quick example. although really there are many...

• - Its claimed Cornwalls constitutional status / minority recognition are two main factors in Cornish politics.. this is very misleading and when the source for that claim is an online petition with just 600 votes.. theres clearly a problem.

Anyway please do not remove those tags because i am not the only person who has concerns about this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Following some discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cornwall, I have made some edits to the article, particularly to the Introduction and the History section, in an attempt to provide some sort of balance and to remove some of the most highly politically partisan statements, as well as some irrelevancies such as the national English (sic) election results. Other editors might like to know that I certainly do not endorse in full the comments made in that discussion by any of the other editors on either side of that polarised discussion! Personally, I have no problem whatever with an article, specifically for Cornwall as a unique area, which cross-refers to Cornish nationalism, issues of constitutional status, and the Stannary Courts and Parliaments. However, it needs to do so in a way which is as non-partisan as possible, and which recognises the needs of global readers for unbiased information. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Cornish constitutional status is a major factor. Most of the rest of Cornish politics is on the level of when the rubbish in Perranporth gets lifted, the bus shelter in Redruth, and when they're going to resurface a road near Launceston. In other words, boring and trivial, and on the level of the Liberal Democrats, who get elected regularly on such issues, and then do little or nothing about them.--MacRusgail (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Let's get some perspective here. In the 2010 election Mebyon Kernow got 1.9% of the votes. The party saw its vote DECLINE in three of the constituencies. In the St Ives vote they were beaten into seventh place, getting less votes than the "Cornish Democrats", who are a "one man, his dog and his website" party! This was despite the MK candidate having been on the front page of the local newspaper, in the week leading up to the election, following an alledged threat from the BNP, and despite MK leader Dick Cole appearing on, and being interviewed on, the BBC, and on local radio, whilst the Cornish Democrats did not.

Let's not forget, MK only got 3 out of 126 county councillors at the last county council election.

Now can anyone tell me why the majority of the "Politics of Cornwall" page is given over to the nationalist agenda, when it is not supported in Cornwall, nor does it make an impact on the politics of the county?! Mebyon Kernow were outvoted by other minor parties, the greens and the UKIP, in most of the seats they fought. Why do these parties not have their share support in Cornwall reflected on these pages?

Yes MK have a presebnce there, but it does not warrant the overkill on this and many other pages relating to Cornwall.Serpren (talk) 07:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Mebyon Kernow is not the only outlet for nationalism in Cornwall. Two nationalist MPs got reelected. MK got 3 out of 123 (not 126) seats in the Council election - it ran in 33 of those seats and got 15.95% of the vote in them. This year MK's vote count compared to the last general election increased by 51%. In the Euro elections it beat Labour. 55% of people in Cornwall support a Cornish Assembly.

Nationalist issues are major issues in Cornwall, MK aren't the only ones talking about it. Do you live in Cornwall? If not then you won't know who else talks about nationalist issues - Lib Dems, Independents, council leaders, etc. If you want to discuss some specific points about this article then go ahead, but you won't get anything changed by making sweeping remarks that aren't based on all the facts. --Joowwww (talk) 11:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The people you describe as nationalist candidates are Liberal Democrats, they do not stand for MK nor is Cornish nationalism an overt part of their policies. (Andrew George lost 9% of his votes) MK's vote count did not increase by 51%

In 2005 MK fielded 4 candidates in the then 5 seats (did not stand in St Ives.) They got 3,552 votes. Or an average of 888 votes per candidate

In 2010 MK fielded 6 candidates, they got 5379 votes. Three fifths of these votes were for two candidates, the other two fifths were shared between the other four, giving them an average 583 votes.

Overall MK achieved in 2010 an average of 896 votes per candidate, an average increase of 8 votes per candidate from 2005, or 0.9%.

Those actually winning the seats got an average of 19,000 votes. The Mk achieved 4% of the total they would need to win a seat.

The best performer for MK got 9% of the seat winner’s total.

The worse performer for MK got 1.9% of the seat winner’s total.

Three candidates, or one half of the MK standing, lost votes. . They came last in 3 seats.

Simon Reed was beaten into 7 th place, by an unknown party who’s campaign was not publicised at all..

In the constituencies, were beaten by the UKIP, labour, Conservatives, and Lib Dems, and:

Camborne & Redruth: MK came last out of five choices.

North Cornwall: MK came last out of five choices

South East Cornwall: MK came last out of six choices (also beaten by the Greens)

St Austell and Newquay MK came fourth out of six choices (beat the Greens and BNP.)

St Ives last out of seven choices (also beaten by the Greens and the Cornish democrats.)

Truro & Falmouth MK came fifth out of six choices. (beat the greens.

If we are looking at defining aspects of Cornish politics then UKIP with an average of 2285 votes per candidate, or 2.5 x the MK votes should take more precedence here.

There is nothing in Cornish politics (I live in Truro BTW,) which justifies the nationalist overkill on the "Politics of Cornwall" page.Serpren (talk) 10:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't need a roundup of the election results. George and Rogerson are nationalists. They have both acted within parliament regarding Cornwall's constitutional status. They both read their parliamentary oath in Cornish. They both supported a Cornish tickbox on the census. Rogerson presented a Cornish Assembly bill to parliament. George used to be a member of Mebyon Kernow.

You are assuming that MK is the only outlet for nationalism in Cornwall. It isn't. Not every nationalist votes for MK. And less nationalists vote for a local party at a national election. --Joowwww (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There a thousands of blank lines at the end of this article. Trogne30 (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is only on mobile version Trogne30 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)