![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
On the 2005 Results map the LibDems are in yellow and the Nationalists in orange, whereas everywhere else in the article its the LibDems in orange. The map could also do with a colour-key. 195.128.250.41 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the colours were out of order.-- 86.29.247.234 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A heads up really to keep on top of articles like this one in the run up to what could be a snap election next year. doktorb words deeds 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
While the district lines are showing up well against the Labour and Liberal Democrats, it's exteremly faint in the Conservative areas. It looks to me like if a lighter shade of gray was chosen, they would show up better in the Conservative section while still remaining visible in the Labour & Liberal Democrat sections. Jon 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there's something fishy about the list of targets for the next election. Several for the LDs, for example, are seats they already hold (like Solihull). Will they list as targets seats they're defending? Otherwise the list is wrong. Wally 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On a slightly different note, what about Grantham and Stamford? It's currently held by a Labour MP, but the Conservatives can afford a swing against them of 15% and still gain the seat. Richard B 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
that gets treated as being a tory hold (assuming that they do) as they had it at the 2005 election, the same for any by-election changes (so when sarah teather held brent east in 2005 it went down as libdem gain from lab as labour won it in 2001
on another note, would a green targets list be includable? Joevsimp 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
why not? Joevsimp 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) edit ok, fair enough, i had another look thru the results and brighton pavillion is the only realistic one, kemptown, hove and norwich south are miles behind Joevsimp 10:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The targets for particular parties depends on which seats they think will be most likely to be fall during the campaign, and even then what is being referred to is targeted gains because naturally parties target seats they already hold in order to hold onto them. Seats with much larger majorities for other parties could be seen as being prime targets - take Bethnal Green and Bow, Wyre Forest or Blaenau Gwent for example - Labour no doubt will see all these as prime targets because they are seats that until quite recently were safe Labour and have been taken in very localised campaigns by small parties - small parties can find it difficult to sustain good performances locally over a long time and if they collapse then the party that once held them many of whose former supporters switched to elect the new MP is in a strong position to recapture them.
Poplar and Limehouse may appear to be a safe Labour seat but with George Galloway standing for Respect it could easily be seen as a target not only for Respect, but also for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats because of the split in the Labour vote.
Really these are marginals not necessarily targets, because a party might feel for some reason that a marginal was unwinnable for them despite the statistics, a target on the other hand is whatever the party decides to aim it's resources heavily into to win and the top ten targets again are what they decide are the top ten targets. Political parties don't simply pick lists of targets based on the previous election result, they use a whole range of factors.-- Lord of the Isles 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
At the moment only one of the three Green Party target seats is listed. The others are Norwich South and Lewisham Dept. By swing these probably look like long shots (and maybe they are) but at local elections, etc they have continued to poll higher in these areas (in Norwich S. they got more votes in the constituency than labour at the last *locals*) and are therefore targetting them seriously. I think it's worth adding these to the Green target seats, if people don't object. 82.21.102.176 ( talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In this section it states 'Normally governments can easily survive for a full parliamentary term on a majority of more than 20 seats over all other parties'. I am not confident about this - where did we get the figure of 20 from as it sounds like original research. An example is the 1992 election where there was an overall majority of 21 but the government struggled to govern on that majority for a full term. I think that this needs rewriting as it is a very dubious statement. Davewild 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how dosile the operition is rather than the number of seats held, welks!-- 86.29.247.234 03:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There were special circumstances in the 1992-97 parliament. There were eight Conservative seats lost to by-elections during the parliament, eight MP's had the government whip removed from them over a dispute about signing the Maastricht Treaty and four MP's defected to other parties. John Major also had to endure a leadership challenge and an election mid-term with over a quarter of his parliamentary party voting for John Redwood. I'm not sure if the figure of 20 has any value in the article, but the 1992-97 parliament had anything BUT a stable administration! Esquimo 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it is an arbitary figure without any sources to back it up and am just using the 1992 election as an example to show the figure is not always true. Davewild 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
a quick heads-up, this week the Labour party sent a mailshot to its members asking for donations (recommended £15) for the election, campaign. as i've only been an LP member since may (for the leadership election) i dont know if/when these usually get sent in relation to when the next election will be, but if anyone else does then be aware this has happenned Joevsimp 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's anything like the Liberal Democrats you'll be receiving about one of those a month for the rest of your natural life! Possibly Labour don't need to hit up their memebers for cash quite so often as they are still mostly bankrolled by trade-unions but I'd imagine it's still a fairly regular occurance. I'm led to believe that Labour have told their local parties to have candidates in place by christmas so presumably they'll be READY to fight an election next spring, but that isn't to say that's when it will actually be. Esquimo 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it really neccessary for there to be two sets of photos of the main 3 party leaders?
Also when I last came on this article a few months ago there was a useful graph showing the different amount of support the main parties have/had since the 2005 election, what happened to that? -- Mas 18 dl 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of them looking at Cameron in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.34 ( talk) 06:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If every opinion poll from now to the end of the General Election is added to the InfoBox at the top, it will get ludicrously long by the end of the campaign - even if the election turned out to be on 25 October 2007, if it went to 2009 or 2010 it would end up amounting to more than half the length of the article. Surely if opinion polls are to be included then given that this is an article about the next General Election, not about everything in this parliament up to and including the parliament then surely at the very least they should be limited to ones at the start of the actual month of the election being called and up until the election day itself and Exit Poll!-- Lord of the Isles 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Advance planning - "Post-Election Edit War Syndrome" for a discussion that's aiming to get agreement in advance about how to avoid some of the post election edit wars that have raged after other country's elections. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the seats needed section of the infobox in accordance with [Boundary Changes| http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk]. 90.209.222.82 ( talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)RAHOWELL 90.209.222.82 ( talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Zenon2009 ( talk · contribs) has moved the existing Next United Kingdom general election article to 2009 or 2010 United Kingdom general election article without discussion. Personally I feel the new name is inferior to the old one. Until the election occurs it will be the "Next" general election - at that time the article can be renamed to the correct year. Having a guess in the article name does not seem particularly professional. Is there any support for either the new or old names? Road Wizard ( talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanting to check I counted the dates correctly, in which case, less then 5 weeks before the title change. 78.32.249.98 ( talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to check, boxing day occurs on a Saturday this year, and the day you removed from the day above was the 28th not the 26th. Does this still count as a Bank Holiday (as a substitute for booxing day), or not? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO it will be better to simply leave the name of this page at the present title, which is undoubtedly accurate, rather than switch to any specific year, even if we can work out that the election 'must' be held in that year. Why? Well, a couple of reasons; i) We wouldn't want to imply that the election had actually been called, or that dating the election to 2010 was in any way official. ii) There is a chance, admitted as small as it might be, that the election might be delayed beyond 2010. I know the last time this has happened was in the world wars, but as I understand it, there is nothing to actually stop the government attempting to extend it's own life-span. iii) It is perhaps more likely that there may be more than a single general election in 2010, for instance if the first results in a hung parliament, which would require us to change the title once again to 'June 2010', or similar. So, to be honest, all this speculation seems somewhat like a waste of intellectual effort, as interesting as it may be. -- Neil ( talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No, for once this isn't quibbling about what we should say the date will be :-)
About half of the (lengthy) lead section was a discussion of what date the election would be; I've condensed it into a paragraph, and moved the discussion to its own section. It could probably do with something of an overhaul now it's sitting there, if anyone's interested... Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The article lists Croyden Central as Labour-held Tory target, but it is held by a Conservative. Am I missing something or is it wrong? - Rrius ( talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If there was a hung parliament and no party had a majority over 326 – and none of the parties wanted to team up - would the largest party (the one closest to 326) be allowed to form a minority government? Thanks in advance. 81.111.221.11 ( talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A few questions:
- Rrius ( talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an interesting page at the UK Polling Report which discusses the nature of different predictions for the 'notional' winners. I'd assume that we are using the 'Rallings & Thrasher' figures ( [1]), which apparently 'will be used by the mainstream media for all their election coverage and are regarded as the “official” figures'. As to your questions:
-- Neil ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please remove 'Solihull' from the list of Lib Dem targets. Solihull has been under the control of the Lib Dems since 2005 when Lorely Burt won marginally. If Anything it should be a Tory target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.234.24 ( talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The source does not indicate he is retiring. It simply said that he will not contest in the same constituency again. He might ended up being parachuted into safe Labour seat, just like Shaun Woodward w.tanoto-soegiri ( talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is Dundee West down as an SNP target from a "marginal" Labour seat when the required swing is 7.28?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.216 ( talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This election isn't on-going. It hasn't even been called yet, therefore I am removing the ongoing bar. 81.79.107.43 ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a 'reliable source' that the General Elections will be on 6 May 2010 on the same day as the council elections.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gAUX-Mx6sdbgysvn6y0LQzEUPZ1g
( 86.170.162.197 ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
I see there is a dispute over whether to mention that Ian Gibson was also barred from standing as Labour candidate in the next election. I think it should be mentioned and would like to explain why. First, Wikipedia is not news. When the decision was taken by the NEC panel, it was relevant to the next general election because Ian Gibson was intending to stand. His decision to resign after the panel decision subsequently removed him from the field, but the panel decision itself still stands. Seecond, there is some pressure within the Labour Party, in the light of the byelection result, for the NEC panel decision to be overturned and for Gibson to be reselected. Third, most of the sources for the NEC panel's decision include the Gibson decision and to say that 'four Labour MPs were barred' when the sources say 'five Labour MPs were barred' means that it is worth explaining how the discrepancy might come. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Will this page be renamed United Kingdom general election, 2010? Smurfy 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Should the ukip be added as one of the main partys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.204.65 ( talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to know why the BNP have not even been mentioned when parties like RESPECT (who no one has even heard of) have. Considering all the controversy in the papers. I don't care about the controversy, Wiki is not supposed to be biased and they are clearly a rising party. http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/who-will-you-vote-for-in-the-2010-general-election-poll.html People can cry racism all they want, but truth is the BNP are a political party. Scottish National Party are accepted so why not BNP? They have seats in European parliament if it means anything and after Question Time their popularity grew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.178.118 ( talk) 11:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
" The
Jury Team, launched in March 2009, intends to increase the number of
Independent politicians in the House of Commons by backing suitable candidates in the election."
from the opening paragraph as I'm not sure how appropriate it was for the opening. It could perhaps be placed elsewhere - any thoughts?
Cooltrainer Hugh (
talk)
23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This article and several other sources, including the electoral commission, say the last possible date for an election is June 3. This article also says that the earliest a proclamation summoning a new parliament could issue would be May 11, 2010. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. Schedule 1, §2(1)(a). In 2005, the proclamation issueed on April 11, 2005, and the election was held on May 5. That's 24 days, 17 plus 7 (3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 1 bank holiday).
In 2010, there is a bank holiday on May 31. Therefore, if the proclamation is issued on May 11, the election must be held June 4 (17 days plus 7; 3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 31 bank holiday). Thus, either the June 3 date is wrong, or the proclamation can issue on the last day of the current Parliament. Which is it? - Rrius ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of Rallings and Thrasher reported in the main article says that any swing to Labour would result in an increased Labour majority. However, in the "boundary changes" section of the article it is reported that, if votes were cast identically to 2005 (i.e. a zero swing), the Labour majority would go down from 66 to 44. One of these claims must be wrong! Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There's currently comfortably over a hundred MPs who've announced they're not running in the upcoming election; chances are we'll continue to see a good few more announced. We don't seem to have a comparable list for previous elections.
Would it be worth splitting this out into a separate list (or merging it with the current list of MPs, as a note in that table) and having a section in this article saying something about the 2008-9 expenses scandal, and that [some large number] of MPs have chosen not to seek re-election, a list is [somewhere else]?
As it stands, this list takes up a remarkable proportion of the article, but the simple numbers are probably all we need for an overview. Shimgray | talk | 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Currently, our elections are on Thursdays. The clock has run out on an election on 17 December. The following Thursday is Christmas Eve, so no election then. The presence of Christmas also effectively bars an election on New Year's Eve. This means that by the time this move request closes, the election cannot happen in 2009. The possibility of the election being postponed is speculation, and there would be nothing preventing us from moving it back should that happen. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Contributors should assume that this RM runs its full course into December, since any announcement of an election during this time will overrule this discussion. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.held in 2010. doktorb words deeds 07:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. Wereon ( talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In light of the comments made, the above discussion should not have been closed when it was. I am therefore bringing the issue back up for consideration. As of today, it is no longer possible for a 2009 election. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. There are 24 days in December after the 7th, but after excluding the three Saturdays, three Sundays, and two bank holidays for Christmas and Boxing Day, there are only 16 (24 – 8 = 16). Since it is easy for math errors to creep in, the last 17 qualifying days of 2009 are listed below:
Since the last day for an election to be called in 2009 was yesterday, 6 December, and an election called today would take place on 2 January 2010, the page should be moved to United Kingdom general election, 2010 as soon as possible. - Rrius ( talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Time has now run out for a 2009 election. -- Wereon ( talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Since when do we hold a 4 hour discussion that over-turns a 7 day one. Something smells very odd here indeed. - Galloglass 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Weron please don't display your ignorance as well as your bad manners. I suggest you re-read doktorb's contribution to the proper discussion above for the requisit enlightenment. - Galloglass 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The answer to Galloglass's question is probably that the closer took into account the prior RM and the discussions that had taken place before that. - Rrius ( talk) 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page was moved by User:Therequiembellishere, move-protected by User:tedder on Dec. 9 — æk Talk 04:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election →
United Kingdom general election, 2010 —
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering...although we already know the election will be held in 2010, couldn't an alternative title been the 55th (54th..?) United Kingdom general election? I mean, like "The Next United Kingdom general election" can't be the first few word of the article forever. nat.u toronto 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
On the 2005 Results map the LibDems are in yellow and the Nationalists in orange, whereas everywhere else in the article its the LibDems in orange. The map could also do with a colour-key. 195.128.250.41 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, the colours were out of order.-- 86.29.247.234 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
A heads up really to keep on top of articles like this one in the run up to what could be a snap election next year. doktorb words deeds 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
While the district lines are showing up well against the Labour and Liberal Democrats, it's exteremly faint in the Conservative areas. It looks to me like if a lighter shade of gray was chosen, they would show up better in the Conservative section while still remaining visible in the Labour & Liberal Democrat sections. Jon 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there's something fishy about the list of targets for the next election. Several for the LDs, for example, are seats they already hold (like Solihull). Will they list as targets seats they're defending? Otherwise the list is wrong. Wally 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
On a slightly different note, what about Grantham and Stamford? It's currently held by a Labour MP, but the Conservatives can afford a swing against them of 15% and still gain the seat. Richard B 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
that gets treated as being a tory hold (assuming that they do) as they had it at the 2005 election, the same for any by-election changes (so when sarah teather held brent east in 2005 it went down as libdem gain from lab as labour won it in 2001
on another note, would a green targets list be includable? Joevsimp 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
why not? Joevsimp 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) edit ok, fair enough, i had another look thru the results and brighton pavillion is the only realistic one, kemptown, hove and norwich south are miles behind Joevsimp 10:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The targets for particular parties depends on which seats they think will be most likely to be fall during the campaign, and even then what is being referred to is targeted gains because naturally parties target seats they already hold in order to hold onto them. Seats with much larger majorities for other parties could be seen as being prime targets - take Bethnal Green and Bow, Wyre Forest or Blaenau Gwent for example - Labour no doubt will see all these as prime targets because they are seats that until quite recently were safe Labour and have been taken in very localised campaigns by small parties - small parties can find it difficult to sustain good performances locally over a long time and if they collapse then the party that once held them many of whose former supporters switched to elect the new MP is in a strong position to recapture them.
Poplar and Limehouse may appear to be a safe Labour seat but with George Galloway standing for Respect it could easily be seen as a target not only for Respect, but also for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats because of the split in the Labour vote.
Really these are marginals not necessarily targets, because a party might feel for some reason that a marginal was unwinnable for them despite the statistics, a target on the other hand is whatever the party decides to aim it's resources heavily into to win and the top ten targets again are what they decide are the top ten targets. Political parties don't simply pick lists of targets based on the previous election result, they use a whole range of factors.-- Lord of the Isles 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
At the moment only one of the three Green Party target seats is listed. The others are Norwich South and Lewisham Dept. By swing these probably look like long shots (and maybe they are) but at local elections, etc they have continued to poll higher in these areas (in Norwich S. they got more votes in the constituency than labour at the last *locals*) and are therefore targetting them seriously. I think it's worth adding these to the Green target seats, if people don't object. 82.21.102.176 ( talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
In this section it states 'Normally governments can easily survive for a full parliamentary term on a majority of more than 20 seats over all other parties'. I am not confident about this - where did we get the figure of 20 from as it sounds like original research. An example is the 1992 election where there was an overall majority of 21 but the government struggled to govern on that majority for a full term. I think that this needs rewriting as it is a very dubious statement. Davewild 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It depends on how dosile the operition is rather than the number of seats held, welks!-- 86.29.247.234 03:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
There were special circumstances in the 1992-97 parliament. There were eight Conservative seats lost to by-elections during the parliament, eight MP's had the government whip removed from them over a dispute about signing the Maastricht Treaty and four MP's defected to other parties. John Major also had to endure a leadership challenge and an election mid-term with over a quarter of his parliamentary party voting for John Redwood. I'm not sure if the figure of 20 has any value in the article, but the 1992-97 parliament had anything BUT a stable administration! Esquimo 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My point is that it is an arbitary figure without any sources to back it up and am just using the 1992 election as an example to show the figure is not always true. Davewild 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
a quick heads-up, this week the Labour party sent a mailshot to its members asking for donations (recommended £15) for the election, campaign. as i've only been an LP member since may (for the leadership election) i dont know if/when these usually get sent in relation to when the next election will be, but if anyone else does then be aware this has happenned Joevsimp 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If it's anything like the Liberal Democrats you'll be receiving about one of those a month for the rest of your natural life! Possibly Labour don't need to hit up their memebers for cash quite so often as they are still mostly bankrolled by trade-unions but I'd imagine it's still a fairly regular occurance. I'm led to believe that Labour have told their local parties to have candidates in place by christmas so presumably they'll be READY to fight an election next spring, but that isn't to say that's when it will actually be. Esquimo 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it really neccessary for there to be two sets of photos of the main 3 party leaders?
Also when I last came on this article a few months ago there was a useful graph showing the different amount of support the main parties have/had since the 2005 election, what happened to that? -- Mas 18 dl 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Both of them looking at Cameron in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.34 ( talk) 06:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If every opinion poll from now to the end of the General Election is added to the InfoBox at the top, it will get ludicrously long by the end of the campaign - even if the election turned out to be on 25 October 2007, if it went to 2009 or 2010 it would end up amounting to more than half the length of the article. Surely if opinion polls are to be included then given that this is an article about the next General Election, not about everything in this parliament up to and including the parliament then surely at the very least they should be limited to ones at the start of the actual month of the election being called and up until the election day itself and Exit Poll!-- Lord of the Isles 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies#Advance planning - "Post-Election Edit War Syndrome" for a discussion that's aiming to get agreement in advance about how to avoid some of the post election edit wars that have raged after other country's elections. Timrollpickering ( talk) 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated the seats needed section of the infobox in accordance with [Boundary Changes| http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk]. 90.209.222.82 ( talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)RAHOWELL 90.209.222.82 ( talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Zenon2009 ( talk · contribs) has moved the existing Next United Kingdom general election article to 2009 or 2010 United Kingdom general election article without discussion. Personally I feel the new name is inferior to the old one. Until the election occurs it will be the "Next" general election - at that time the article can be renamed to the correct year. Having a guess in the article name does not seem particularly professional. Is there any support for either the new or old names? Road Wizard ( talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Just wanting to check I counted the dates correctly, in which case, less then 5 weeks before the title change. 78.32.249.98 ( talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Just to check, boxing day occurs on a Saturday this year, and the day you removed from the day above was the 28th not the 26th. Does this still count as a Bank Holiday (as a substitute for booxing day), or not? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
IMHO it will be better to simply leave the name of this page at the present title, which is undoubtedly accurate, rather than switch to any specific year, even if we can work out that the election 'must' be held in that year. Why? Well, a couple of reasons; i) We wouldn't want to imply that the election had actually been called, or that dating the election to 2010 was in any way official. ii) There is a chance, admitted as small as it might be, that the election might be delayed beyond 2010. I know the last time this has happened was in the world wars, but as I understand it, there is nothing to actually stop the government attempting to extend it's own life-span. iii) It is perhaps more likely that there may be more than a single general election in 2010, for instance if the first results in a hung parliament, which would require us to change the title once again to 'June 2010', or similar. So, to be honest, all this speculation seems somewhat like a waste of intellectual effort, as interesting as it may be. -- Neil ( talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No, for once this isn't quibbling about what we should say the date will be :-)
About half of the (lengthy) lead section was a discussion of what date the election would be; I've condensed it into a paragraph, and moved the discussion to its own section. It could probably do with something of an overhaul now it's sitting there, if anyone's interested... Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
The article lists Croyden Central as Labour-held Tory target, but it is held by a Conservative. Am I missing something or is it wrong? - Rrius ( talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
If there was a hung parliament and no party had a majority over 326 – and none of the parties wanted to team up - would the largest party (the one closest to 326) be allowed to form a minority government? Thanks in advance. 81.111.221.11 ( talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
A few questions:
- Rrius ( talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
There is an interesting page at the UK Polling Report which discusses the nature of different predictions for the 'notional' winners. I'd assume that we are using the 'Rallings & Thrasher' figures ( [1]), which apparently 'will be used by the mainstream media for all their election coverage and are regarded as the “official” figures'. As to your questions:
-- Neil ( talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please remove 'Solihull' from the list of Lib Dem targets. Solihull has been under the control of the Lib Dems since 2005 when Lorely Burt won marginally. If Anything it should be a Tory target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.234.24 ( talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
The source does not indicate he is retiring. It simply said that he will not contest in the same constituency again. He might ended up being parachuted into safe Labour seat, just like Shaun Woodward w.tanoto-soegiri ( talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Why is Dundee West down as an SNP target from a "marginal" Labour seat when the required swing is 7.28?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.216 ( talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This election isn't on-going. It hasn't even been called yet, therefore I am removing the ongoing bar. 81.79.107.43 ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I have a 'reliable source' that the General Elections will be on 6 May 2010 on the same day as the council elections.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gAUX-Mx6sdbgysvn6y0LQzEUPZ1g
( 86.170.162.197 ( talk) 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC))
I see there is a dispute over whether to mention that Ian Gibson was also barred from standing as Labour candidate in the next election. I think it should be mentioned and would like to explain why. First, Wikipedia is not news. When the decision was taken by the NEC panel, it was relevant to the next general election because Ian Gibson was intending to stand. His decision to resign after the panel decision subsequently removed him from the field, but the panel decision itself still stands. Seecond, there is some pressure within the Labour Party, in the light of the byelection result, for the NEC panel decision to be overturned and for Gibson to be reselected. Third, most of the sources for the NEC panel's decision include the Gibson decision and to say that 'four Labour MPs were barred' when the sources say 'five Labour MPs were barred' means that it is worth explaining how the discrepancy might come. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Will this page be renamed United Kingdom general election, 2010? Smurfy 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Should the ukip be added as one of the main partys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.204.65 ( talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I want to know why the BNP have not even been mentioned when parties like RESPECT (who no one has even heard of) have. Considering all the controversy in the papers. I don't care about the controversy, Wiki is not supposed to be biased and they are clearly a rising party. http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/who-will-you-vote-for-in-the-2010-general-election-poll.html People can cry racism all they want, but truth is the BNP are a political party. Scottish National Party are accepted so why not BNP? They have seats in European parliament if it means anything and after Question Time their popularity grew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.178.118 ( talk) 11:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following sentence:
" The
Jury Team, launched in March 2009, intends to increase the number of
Independent politicians in the House of Commons by backing suitable candidates in the election."
from the opening paragraph as I'm not sure how appropriate it was for the opening. It could perhaps be placed elsewhere - any thoughts?
Cooltrainer Hugh (
talk)
23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
This article and several other sources, including the electoral commission, say the last possible date for an election is June 3. This article also says that the earliest a proclamation summoning a new parliament could issue would be May 11, 2010. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. Schedule 1, §2(1)(a). In 2005, the proclamation issueed on April 11, 2005, and the election was held on May 5. That's 24 days, 17 plus 7 (3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 1 bank holiday).
In 2010, there is a bank holiday on May 31. Therefore, if the proclamation is issued on May 11, the election must be held June 4 (17 days plus 7; 3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 31 bank holiday). Thus, either the June 3 date is wrong, or the proclamation can issue on the last day of the current Parliament. Which is it? - Rrius ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The analysis of Rallings and Thrasher reported in the main article says that any swing to Labour would result in an increased Labour majority. However, in the "boundary changes" section of the article it is reported that, if votes were cast identically to 2005 (i.e. a zero swing), the Labour majority would go down from 66 to 44. One of these claims must be wrong! Grover cleveland ( talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
There's currently comfortably over a hundred MPs who've announced they're not running in the upcoming election; chances are we'll continue to see a good few more announced. We don't seem to have a comparable list for previous elections.
Would it be worth splitting this out into a separate list (or merging it with the current list of MPs, as a note in that table) and having a section in this article saying something about the 2008-9 expenses scandal, and that [some large number] of MPs have chosen not to seek re-election, a list is [somewhere else]?
As it stands, this list takes up a remarkable proportion of the article, but the simple numbers are probably all we need for an overview. Shimgray | talk | 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Currently, our elections are on Thursdays. The clock has run out on an election on 17 December. The following Thursday is Christmas Eve, so no election then. The presence of Christmas also effectively bars an election on New Year's Eve. This means that by the time this move request closes, the election cannot happen in 2009. The possibility of the election being postponed is speculation, and there would be nothing preventing us from moving it back should that happen. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Contributors should assume that this RM runs its full course into December, since any announcement of an election during this time will overrule this discussion. 81.111.114.131 ( talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.held in 2010. doktorb words deeds 07:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page moved. Wereon ( talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
In light of the comments made, the above discussion should not have been closed when it was. I am therefore bringing the issue back up for consideration. As of today, it is no longer possible for a 2009 election. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. There are 24 days in December after the 7th, but after excluding the three Saturdays, three Sundays, and two bank holidays for Christmas and Boxing Day, there are only 16 (24 – 8 = 16). Since it is easy for math errors to creep in, the last 17 qualifying days of 2009 are listed below:
Since the last day for an election to be called in 2009 was yesterday, 6 December, and an election called today would take place on 2 January 2010, the page should be moved to United Kingdom general election, 2010 as soon as possible. - Rrius ( talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Time has now run out for a 2009 election. -- Wereon ( talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Since when do we hold a 4 hour discussion that over-turns a 7 day one. Something smells very odd here indeed. - Galloglass 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Weron please don't display your ignorance as well as your bad manners. I suggest you re-read doktorb's contribution to the proper discussion above for the requisit enlightenment. - Galloglass 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The answer to Galloglass's question is probably that the closer took into account the prior RM and the discussions that had taken place before that. - Rrius ( talk) 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was page was moved by User:Therequiembellishere, move-protected by User:tedder on Dec. 9 — æk Talk 04:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Next United Kingdom general election →
United Kingdom general election, 2010 —
-- Mais oui! ( talk) 12:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Just wondering...although we already know the election will be held in 2010, couldn't an alternative title been the 55th (54th..?) United Kingdom general election? I mean, like "The Next United Kingdom general election" can't be the first few word of the article forever. nat.u toronto 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |