![]() | 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 | Archive 5 |
If Scotland does vote in favour of leaving the UK in 2014, it wouldn't cease to be part of the UK suddenly. The position of MPs elected in Scotland wouldn't be 'unclear' because Scotland would remain part of the UK until the British government starts proceedings for an exit of Scotland from the UK. This would take a few years therefore the position of the MPs wouldn't be unclear at all, as they would still have to represent their constituents in Westminster as Scotland wouldn't yet be an independent state. Also, the source quoted was from the comment section of the Guardian. Anything from the comment section of any newspaper is opinion rather than fact, therefore such a source is inappropriate unless individuals are being quoted for their opinions.
What do other people think about the inclusion of a paragraph on the position of MPs elected in Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.199.152 ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand you reasoning and accept that such an occasion would be noteworthy but the position of elected MPs wouldn't be 'unclear' as previously stated. They would simply represent their constituents until 2016 or whenever else Scotland ceases to be a constituent country of the UK. I personally think a point should be added if Scotland does vote 'Yes' to state that the MPs elected wouldn't serve a full term. What do you think? 86.149.199.152 ( talk) 15:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of making a note of it somehow, it is more then note worthy but we are potentially delving into hypotheticals here, so we do need to be careful! Come what may it is clear that there will be MPs elected to Westminster by the Scottish people. What is unclear is what their status will be i.e. full members, interim members or even merely observers. I would tread carefully with the hypothetical of saying how this will affect government formation/collapse because this would be a hypothetical of a hypothetical! We can't say that if Scotland goes independent and Labour form a Government in 2015 that they could loose their majority in 2016, that's far too specific. We have got to avoid forecasting the election result, whilst at the same time not second guessing the Scottish people. Therefore I would favour simply saying "If Scotland were to become independent, it's 59(53) MPs would be abolished which could in turn affect the UK Governments majority. Depending on the party configuration, the majority could either decrease or increase and indeed remove or create the need for a coalition or early election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, whatever happens at the Scottish Referendum might have implications for the parliament formed in 2015, but it will not directly affect the conduct of the 2015 election. This article is about the election, so whatever putative statement might be made about a possible yes vote in Scotland should have a very low profile in the article: it has undue prominence in the current lead. There is nothing unclear about the status of Scottish MPs immediately on their election in 2015. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
We have not said anything about the TV debates and there has been a lot of high level talk about them. There is the possibility that they could even take place in 2014 as asserted by the PM and Menzies Campbell. Many well renowned commentators are even talking about the attendance of Nigel Farage. I think we need to talk about how this part should be worded, we don't want it to be all conjecture, fortunately there are a lot of sources out there! Furthermore there is a question as to whether there will be a debate for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), whether that will be done at a pan-EU level or at the national level or both is currently unclear, non-the-less there are sources out there to make this note worthy on both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section on the TV debates which uses a variety of sources, some of the sources I got from Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). There is no implication either way as to whether there will be a TV Debate for the 2014 EP elections, this is the right page for those sources as those sources refer to this article. Thankyou sheffno1gunner ( talk) 16:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What are you saying is unsourced, the sources are provided, other editors such as Bondegouza has also read them, may I suggest you actually read them, everything I have written is sourced! The content has been reviewed and rewritten to improve the wording, other then that other editors seem happy to read the sources and accept what they say! sheffno1gunner ( talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Remember that there's a cite tool at the top of your editing page that can do all of this for you, thereby avoiding such confusion. –
Richard
BB
19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sorry if I came across a tad aggressive. I can see that this was an honest mistake. Thank you for fixing my links. sheffno1gunner ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I notice that protection has been added to this article without a single comment having been made on this talk page. That is frankly unacceptable behavior on the part of those editors concerned! The editors concerned cited their reasons as edit warring! Really? It seems to me that it was accepted that UKIP did not have their 2 swing seats included as they were by election results. I accepted this quite clearly in one of my comments whereby I simply removed an unnecessary space in the article in order for my edit to be valid so that my comments would appear in the edit list! I stand by those comments! The fact that this article has been protected without proper justification is something I find deeply concerning! It seems a certain group of editors of a certain political persuasion are determined to prevent further additions to this story and wish to reword text that has already been agreed! doktorbuk is a self confessed Liberal Democrat, other editors have expressed on their user pages that they are interested in articles concerning the Liberal Democrats, it strikes me as an odd coincidence really! When doktorbuk uses very clear phrases such as "To defeat the UKIP IPs..." and "But we need to close the "UKIP loophole"" one can be forgiven for thinting that there is something not right here! Has anyone anything to say for themselves? I've done nothing wrong, I accepted that those swing seats were being removed before the protection went on, I merely used a false edit (which actually tidied the article a bit) to add comments! There is some very odd and clearly partial behavior by some editors on here! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have very little interest in taking this further, other than to correct errant or malicious edits. With policies on my side - WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc - and with consensus on my side - the project's regular editors and our agreements - I know that anonymous IP editors with a UKIP balance can and should be stopped from attempting to take over a section. As it happens, there is nothing wrong with the section as it stands. It is balanced, it is fair, it is reasonable. Any claim to bias is, in itself, biased. doktorb words deeds 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but no one is attempting to change it. Forgive me for shouting but you are not getting the message: "ONCE THE POLICY WAS EXPLAINED, I ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE TARGET SEAT EDITS! THAT WAS THE ISSUE" You then proceeded to start reverting text that had been agreed by other editors some time ago "IT WAS THAT AND THAT ALONE WHAT I OBJECTED TO" this can clearly be backed up in the comments, it was you that was no assuming good faith which has lead you to prempt the possibility of WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL being violated. The point is you did this after the matter had been settled purely because your excessive reverting of already agreed text had been chalenged! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Currently, there is a lot of material about the legislative process behind this law, including things that were at one time proposed and later amended, making it quite difficult to disentangle what actually became law.
I feel that all this material is out of place in this article; we should confine ourselves to the law as enacted, which is the only thing that actually affects the next election. Readers who want more detail about how the Act became law should be referred to the dedicated article on that subject. Anybody disagree? Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I know it's been debated before, but since they seem to be fast becoming "mainstream" should they be added to the election box and so change it like how the election box is for the 2013 Local Elections page. In 2010 UKIP came fourth in term's of share of the vote with 3% support but since then the party has obviously surged in support and will most likely get at least low double digit figure's even if it does badly. In the run up to the local election's the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" (They refused to back any of them) but they included UKIP on that page, not as an "other" like the Green Party but as a main party. Last night on Channel 4 they said that "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included, I understand why people have been reluctant to include them before but now that mainstream media has actually started referring to them as equals alongside the Conservative's, Labour and the Liberal Democrat's and the fact that we've seen some real success for the party at the ballot box in these latest local election's as well as all the second place finishes we've seen in parliamentary by elections and the fact that they continue to at least match the Liberal Democrat's in the polls surely means that they should now be included in the infobox Guyb123321 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Although UKiP are not going to win any seats, they will have an affect on the target seats and it would be useful to see their target list for comparative purposes. Secondly, it would be useful fo the table to show the number of votes as well as the percentage which would illustrate just how many people it takes to change a government in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.114 ( talk) 08:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Surely UKIP should be added to the infobox so that the article remains impartial in light of current affairs. This would keep in line with procedure for election articles in other countries (e.g. Italy 2013, in regard to M5S) 86.179.144.252 ( talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe every party contesting a seat should be included as the smaller parties also have a reasonable chance of getting into government. If the most popular party wins just a handful of seats short of a majority I imagine any of, for example, the SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Northern Ireland parties might get on board to form a coalition government. Cymrodor ( talk) 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't support, or vote for, UKIP, but this is getting silly. The latest opinion poll tonight has
Labour 35% Conservative 24% UKIP 22% Lib Dem 11%
On that basis they are plainly among, at least, the main four parties contesting the next election. They have double the support of one of the parties which is listed as a mainstream contender in this article. I take the criticism that their support may erode by, or in, the actual campaign, but that can be addressed nearer the time. Doing so pre-emptively seems to me to be engaging in WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. 2.29.219.151 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I do think the fact that UKIP have consistently beat the Liberal Democrat's in EVERY SINGLE poll taken since the local election's and according to the graph below they are on the rise does warrant their inclusion in the infobox. Also the fact that the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" & included UKIP on that page, (not as an "other" like the Green Party) but as a main party and also the fact that Channel 4 now is saying thing's like "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included just show's that they are now a main party and should be considered as one.
The fact is whether you want to go on election results (4th in the last general election, 2nd in last european election, 3rd in percentage vote/4th in seat's at last local election's) or if you wan't to go on the fact that they are now being included by the mainstream media as one of the main party's or if you wan't to look at polling result's which is showing them consistently beating the Lib Dem's. In conclusion it all seems to point to them deserving a place on the infobox along with the other three party's. Guyb123321 ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The arguments about UKIP's chances of winning a seat seem irrelevant. Many other parties with sitting MPs and which will again have MPs elected in 2015 are not included on this page, which I believe is wrong (see my commments above). Cymrodor ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Due to some very useless editing, the very badly written UKIP box has been put inbetween the conservatives and libdems, although labour has much more of a majority. Do not remove labour. If you MUST insert UKIP, put in the box properly. I recommend you look at the next EU election page, they have done it much better there if you wish to include UKIP <fontcolor="#8000FF">Jacob
Given the discussion in the sections above, it seems to me that the editing community leans in favour of adding UKIP to the infobox. Personally, I think -- given how the media are now reporting the situation and the actions taken by some pollsters, i.e. on what WP:RS are doing -- that it is now time to do so. However, Richard BB recently suggested that there was "a consensus against adding them in there". I'm taking a break from Wikipedia soon until later in the month, but I thought I'd kick off a discussion to try and clarify people's views on this matter. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No there is clearly no consenus for parliamentary elections to the house of Commons as they have NO SEATS, but they are sensibly added to the European Parliamentary Elections infobox. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(out dent) There is clearly no consensus for addition and their addition is simply media coverage and a few opinion polls putting them in double figures.As doctorb has said there is no uniform swing and there is no guarantee of seats. There is no comaprison between previous election infoboxes and future election infoboxes and previous way things have been done are not a precedent binding on how this article must behave. I would take a look at similar election inforboxes on local elections take Isle of Wight before the election there was no inclusion on the Island Independents even though they stood in nearly every seat and if opinion polls had been undertaken should have been shown to have a high level of support. That info box only included the top two parties the party of the official opposition the Conservatives and the Island Independents who took control albeit as a minority) UKIP Labour and Libdems are not included even though they won seats and UKIP got a fair chunk of votes. Adding UKIP here just based on doing well in local elections recently and opinion polls is not a firm basis for anything, if their support collapses do we remove them or keep them as they were once riding high no we do not add based on opinion polls as they are not representations of the electorate. Do we add the referendum party to the 1997 GE box because they finished fourth and got loads of votes. No we have not and nor did we add them before the election. This addition is just nonsense. If UKIP are added here considering they have ZERO seats and therefor no representationin the House of Commons it could easily be argued that the parties represented eg the DUP SNP Greens Respect Sinn Fien should be added to the infobox. I see no arguments for their inclusion, even though those parties are represented in the House of Commons and UKIP have no representation. The house of Commons is not a PR house it is an FPTP house so it is seats won and not votes garnered. Addition of only UKIP is therefore ludicrous.
I'm exhausted by this constant back and forth nonsense. So I've added UKIP. Let's move on to working together on more important things - constituency articles, Bills and Acts of Parliament, ANYTHING - rather than this trivial claptrap doktorb words deeds 12:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we create articles showing the results of each election? I don't mean we have to make 650 separate articles, but we could break it up like UK Polling Report does: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire & Humber, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern, Southwest, Southeast, and London. Thoughts? SOXROX ( talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The status quo is built on the obvious notion that until now, Britain has had three major national parties, so those have been the parties listed. Two of the main criteria people have used to justify the status quo are the related questions of seats held and previous election results. The first is fairly problematic. In the UK, a lot of parties hold seats, so many in fact that the infobox couldn't hold them all. And trying to draw a line between the top three parties and the others can actually be quite difficult. The Lib Dems have only been above 5% of seats since the 1997 election after spending multiple elections below that line. Few would argue that the Lib Dems should be excluded, so where would the line be drawn?
More generally, the problem with using the previous election's results alone is that it ignores anything and everything that has happened since the last election. That just can't be right in an article that is about the next election, not the previous one.
While I do not think seats and previous elections are right as a sole measure, I do think they are important, and I will come back to that later.
I believe share of the vote is important. Even if a party wins few or no seats, if it has a high vote share, it is an important part of the story of the election. For example, if a party takes 10% nationally, but fails to win a seat, it almost certainly played spoiler in a number of seats for at least one party, and therefore affected the outcome of the election. I think it would be reasonable, after an election, if a party included were that took 1% of the seats and 5% of the vote, or just 10% even without seats. I'm not stating this as concrete proposal, but merely pointing out that vote share matters, even in a first-past-the-post jurisdiction.
But what about before elections? Opinion polls are viewed with suspicion by many, and small parties sometimes surge before an election, but collapse later on. These are genuine, but I think the first should be ignored since polling is the best indicator we have of electoral strength before an election. The second could be addressed by only including a party that has consistently polled above a given threshold for a given period. Threshold should be set so as to include parties that would create a situation like the one in the last paragraph, e.g., playing spoiler. To do so on a wide enough basis to matter, that would have to be at least 5%, but perhaps even 10%. The duration has to be long enough to avoid blips, but short enough to meaningful in the limited time between elections.
I also think we should consider a reset when the writs drop, only including parties that polled well enough in the two or three months beforehand and sticking with that lineup until the election is over unless something really bonkers happens.
So here is my proposal: In the pre-election period, the parties included in the previous elections should be included. Parties that consistently poll above 10% for six months should be added and remain until at least the writs drop unless their vote crashes so utterly that it makes no sense to retain them. At the point the writs drop, we include only the parties that have consistently polled above 10% in the past three months or were in the last election's infobox. I believe in a regularly scheduled election, the writ will drop in April, so perhaps the cutoff for such elections should be 1 January. - Rrius ( talk) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, for those keeping score, UKIP was below 10% as often as it was above it from December 2012 to March, and has been consistently above since then, so by this proposal, UKIP would remain out until September at the earliest. On the 5% measure, it would have gained admission to the infobox around last September. My source is File:UK opinion polling 2010-2015.png. - Rrius ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing and EXTREMELY (note the emphasis) contentious debate on the inclusion of UKIP in the infobox. For those of you who do not know, UKIP (United Kingdom Independenc Party) has made a recent rise in British politics. In the aftermath of the 2013 United Kingdom local elections, where UKIP received the second highest amount of votes, many have been arguing to put them on the table with the top 3 parties, Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic. While UKIP and the Liberal Democrats have similar polling numbers, UKIP still has no MPs in Parliament, where as the the LDs have 57 and are in the government. Should UKIP be included in the table? Feel free to participate in the discussion, and please let it be a civil coversation. SOXROX ( talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment Just because a political party may have an impact on the next general election it doesn't mean they will. It is far too soon to determine whether UKIP are actually in the middle of a mid term jump (at the expense of the mid term Tory party) or whether it is actually a long term trend or change in voting intentions. It will not be possible to determine their impact on the subject of this article until much nearer the election (and we see if there is a set of debates which they are included in). There is little actual media mention of the next general election at the moment and only a fraction of it treating UKIP as anything more than a potential player in it. The one change that has happened of late ( since April 2012) is that UKIP is now regularly included in the questions asked by the opinion pollsters and therefore by the media outlets that pay to have them performed. This could just as easily stop UKIP they were to lose heavily at a local or euro election and cease to be an ongoing story. Remember, despite the fact that opinion pollsters ask 'How would you vote if there were a General Election held tomorrow?' or something similar the reason they are asked is to judge the current political climate and not as a prediction of the next election.
I have removed the RfC tag as it seems clear now that consensus opposes UKIP's inclusion (at least, for now). Bondegezou ( talk) 09:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If I might try to summarise debate above... There is a current consensus against including UKIP in the infobox (although a few said 'too soon' and seemed open to re-considering the matter later). The debate on whether to remove the infobox entirely was more evenly matched, but I think it fair to conclude there is no consensus for change and, therefore, that the infobox should stay for now. Rrius suggested some rules for when to include a party in the infobox, but these did not attract consensus support.
So, where does that leave us? The infobox should stay and include only the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. I cannot see much appetite for re-opening the debate any time soon, but various suggestions have been made for the sort of events/coverage that might warrant a fresh look. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The to-and-fro arguments going on three years can be traced to one thing - the infobox. By removing the box until the election is over, we can move on to mor important and constructive topics doktorb words deeds 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) This is looking more like Rrius against everyone else. This cannot be turned into a battle ground. The RfC is showing a clear move towards not including UKIP and this discussion is showing favour for removing the whole infobox in its entirety. Consensus is not unanimity. Rrius I am going to say this and it is not an attack but, one editor cannot hold a whole page hostage by long posts on a very very minor point and the engaging in edit warring and the posting of edit summaries which assume bad faith. This is beginning to feel a lot like article ownership. As doktorb has said this has go on too long, if it continues I will suggest a topic ban for Rrius to prevent disruption and to allow for some calmness and stability to overwhelm this article. Sport and politics ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest it is safe to conclude that there is no consensus in favour of removing the infobox? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the constant debates about UKIP culminating in the recent RfC, I have created an FAQ at the top which should help put further discussions to rest. Please add to it if you feel there is anything that needs including. — Richard BB 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that just like in the US, where it is very common to have polls of individual congressional districts, this is getting increasingly common in the UK.
For the Eastleigh by election earlier this year, 5 polls were taken over the space of a month and it seems like this trend is only going to increase.
My question is not if we should include polls of individual seats, but where should we put them?
It says here ( http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/ukip-poll-boost-thanet)that UKIP is commissioning 8 polls of marginal seats with Survation and they would be very useful to include somewhere Guyb123321 ( talk) 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can find out more about the polls and their methodology and see if they meet usual standards for these things. That seems like a key question. Will report back! Bondegezou ( talk) 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
OK so the feeling I'm getting is these polls should just be included on the individual constituencies page. I think these polls that have been done seem totally legitimate considering the polls were done by trusted polling service, Survation and they also did not predict a blowout UKIP win, actually in the released poll UKIP is losing 35-30 to Labour with the Conservatives a very close third on 28 Guyb123321 ( talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to point out the mistake of using the national term United Kingdom to describe this nation as today, as if it were around before 1921. It wasn't. If you are referring to a nation called UK in respect of the next, 2015, general election, it cannot be acceptable to use UK in the context of pre-1921 ele tions in the British Isles. Yes, there was a UK, but a completely different nation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
It is this paragraph at the end of the opening section I object to as it is suddenly discussing the history of 2 different nations, one current, one nearly a century defunct and of territory now made up by two unrelated nations, one in the EU Eurozone and one not.
---
"This will be the 55th general election for the United Kingdom since 1801 (earlier elections took place for parliaments in Great Britain and Ireland), though the resultant Parliament will be the 56th, as the first Parliament came about after the co-option of members from the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland."
The terms used make the paragraph untrue and not relevant to anything. It's a very simple point indeed. If you're going to discuss former British nations in an article about the near century old UK and a 2015 general election, it isn't acceptable to refer to the current nation a if it were a different one as of 1801. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that this discussion is not to stray on to the topic of UKIP being included in the info box, that is a seperate discussion. This thread is about target seats. It seems incredibly strange that UKIP have not got a list of target seats on this page when parties such as Respect and the Greens have got a target seat each. There is already a significant number of UKIP target seats based on the United Kingdom local elections, 2013 and recent Parliamentary by-elections. It is also worth taking into account local council by-elections, the party clearly is, using those as an indication as to where they will most intensely target their resources. Indeed it is likely that more will emerge after the next local elections. There are several ways of credibly identifying UKIP target seats.
So far UKIP's 2013 "winning" seats and other realistic target seats include:
I suggest that this list of constituencies is added to the target seats table for UKIP. I can not see any reason why UKIP's target seats shouldn't be included, especially since this can all be sourced. The question is how do we incorporate it into the article. Do we create a new 'special' table for UKIP or whether we should incorporate UKIP into the existing table for the 4 main parties. I would favor the second option. Given the party's rise in the polls, the by-election results, the council election results it seems strange not to include their target seats. MassiveBagOf... ( talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the local elections have much psephological and media significance, but I don't see why you are so insistent on them being some firm cut-off. If we get a bunch of reliable sources sensibly talking about meaningful UKIP target seats before then, I say we include them (in some form). We probably won't... but, indeed, I wouldn't expect such until much closer to the next General Election. I just don't see the next set of locals as some key cut-off date. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
p >> Merkel addresses Britain's parliament( Lihaas ( talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).
"Next United Kingdom general election" is not an appropriate title; it will go out of date, and need complete rewriting every 5 years. The title of the article, never mind the content, violates wp:dated. It would seem far more appropriate for the actual title to be 2015 UK General Election; if "Next United Kingdom general election" is to be kept (I would drop it), it can be periodically redirected to the appropriately-titled article (2015, 202, etc.). Pol098 ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, the page can't be named 'United Kingdom general election, 2015' because we'd have to be definitively sure that it is to take place in 2015. Maybe the change can be made in late December this year.
However, it'd be wrong to say that I am wholly convinced by the current title. Back in the early days of this article, when it existed before the 2010 election, it was known as the '55th United Kingdom general election'. In some ways, I prefer that title. It has the definition that some users seem to think is currently lacking. I did actually make a comment about this before the article was renamed with "next". That went unnoticed, however.
It may not be the perfect idea, but I think that it could have advantages. Red v Blue 22:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd clarify that the point of my original comment was that "next" ("recent", "soon", "now", ...) in an article goes out of date and makes it read very oddly. A fairly prominent article such as this is less likely to remain uncorrected, but I've found plenty of articles referring (in 2013) to "the forthcoming visit [in 2008]", etc. An actual example: "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008" was the first sentence of an article in November 2013. The WP:DATED rules used to give a rule of thumb that an article should still read sensibly in 5 years. "Next" in an article title is particularly visible. Pol098 ( talk) 10:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
![]() | 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 | Archive 5 |
If Scotland does vote in favour of leaving the UK in 2014, it wouldn't cease to be part of the UK suddenly. The position of MPs elected in Scotland wouldn't be 'unclear' because Scotland would remain part of the UK until the British government starts proceedings for an exit of Scotland from the UK. This would take a few years therefore the position of the MPs wouldn't be unclear at all, as they would still have to represent their constituents in Westminster as Scotland wouldn't yet be an independent state. Also, the source quoted was from the comment section of the Guardian. Anything from the comment section of any newspaper is opinion rather than fact, therefore such a source is inappropriate unless individuals are being quoted for their opinions.
What do other people think about the inclusion of a paragraph on the position of MPs elected in Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.199.152 ( talk) 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand you reasoning and accept that such an occasion would be noteworthy but the position of elected MPs wouldn't be 'unclear' as previously stated. They would simply represent their constituents until 2016 or whenever else Scotland ceases to be a constituent country of the UK. I personally think a point should be added if Scotland does vote 'Yes' to state that the MPs elected wouldn't serve a full term. What do you think? 86.149.199.152 ( talk) 15:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of making a note of it somehow, it is more then note worthy but we are potentially delving into hypotheticals here, so we do need to be careful! Come what may it is clear that there will be MPs elected to Westminster by the Scottish people. What is unclear is what their status will be i.e. full members, interim members or even merely observers. I would tread carefully with the hypothetical of saying how this will affect government formation/collapse because this would be a hypothetical of a hypothetical! We can't say that if Scotland goes independent and Labour form a Government in 2015 that they could loose their majority in 2016, that's far too specific. We have got to avoid forecasting the election result, whilst at the same time not second guessing the Scottish people. Therefore I would favour simply saying "If Scotland were to become independent, it's 59(53) MPs would be abolished which could in turn affect the UK Governments majority. Depending on the party configuration, the majority could either decrease or increase and indeed remove or create the need for a coalition or early election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
As I understand it, whatever happens at the Scottish Referendum might have implications for the parliament formed in 2015, but it will not directly affect the conduct of the 2015 election. This article is about the election, so whatever putative statement might be made about a possible yes vote in Scotland should have a very low profile in the article: it has undue prominence in the current lead. There is nothing unclear about the status of Scottish MPs immediately on their election in 2015. Kevin McE ( talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
We have not said anything about the TV debates and there has been a lot of high level talk about them. There is the possibility that they could even take place in 2014 as asserted by the PM and Menzies Campbell. Many well renowned commentators are even talking about the attendance of Nigel Farage. I think we need to talk about how this part should be worded, we don't want it to be all conjecture, fortunately there are a lot of sources out there! Furthermore there is a question as to whether there will be a debate for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), whether that will be done at a pan-EU level or at the national level or both is currently unclear, non-the-less there are sources out there to make this note worthy on both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I have added a section on the TV debates which uses a variety of sources, some of the sources I got from Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). There is no implication either way as to whether there will be a TV Debate for the 2014 EP elections, this is the right page for those sources as those sources refer to this article. Thankyou sheffno1gunner ( talk) 16:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
What are you saying is unsourced, the sources are provided, other editors such as Bondegouza has also read them, may I suggest you actually read them, everything I have written is sourced! The content has been reviewed and rewritten to improve the wording, other then that other editors seem happy to read the sources and accept what they say! sheffno1gunner ( talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Done. Remember that there's a cite tool at the top of your editing page that can do all of this for you, thereby avoiding such confusion. –
Richard
BB
19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, sorry if I came across a tad aggressive. I can see that this was an honest mistake. Thank you for fixing my links. sheffno1gunner ( talk) 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I notice that protection has been added to this article without a single comment having been made on this talk page. That is frankly unacceptable behavior on the part of those editors concerned! The editors concerned cited their reasons as edit warring! Really? It seems to me that it was accepted that UKIP did not have their 2 swing seats included as they were by election results. I accepted this quite clearly in one of my comments whereby I simply removed an unnecessary space in the article in order for my edit to be valid so that my comments would appear in the edit list! I stand by those comments! The fact that this article has been protected without proper justification is something I find deeply concerning! It seems a certain group of editors of a certain political persuasion are determined to prevent further additions to this story and wish to reword text that has already been agreed! doktorbuk is a self confessed Liberal Democrat, other editors have expressed on their user pages that they are interested in articles concerning the Liberal Democrats, it strikes me as an odd coincidence really! When doktorbuk uses very clear phrases such as "To defeat the UKIP IPs..." and "But we need to close the "UKIP loophole"" one can be forgiven for thinting that there is something not right here! Has anyone anything to say for themselves? I've done nothing wrong, I accepted that those swing seats were being removed before the protection went on, I merely used a false edit (which actually tidied the article a bit) to add comments! There is some very odd and clearly partial behavior by some editors on here! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have very little interest in taking this further, other than to correct errant or malicious edits. With policies on my side - WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc - and with consensus on my side - the project's regular editors and our agreements - I know that anonymous IP editors with a UKIP balance can and should be stopped from attempting to take over a section. As it happens, there is nothing wrong with the section as it stands. It is balanced, it is fair, it is reasonable. Any claim to bias is, in itself, biased. doktorb words deeds 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry but no one is attempting to change it. Forgive me for shouting but you are not getting the message: "ONCE THE POLICY WAS EXPLAINED, I ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE TARGET SEAT EDITS! THAT WAS THE ISSUE" You then proceeded to start reverting text that had been agreed by other editors some time ago "IT WAS THAT AND THAT ALONE WHAT I OBJECTED TO" this can clearly be backed up in the comments, it was you that was no assuming good faith which has lead you to prempt the possibility of WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL being violated. The point is you did this after the matter had been settled purely because your excessive reverting of already agreed text had been chalenged! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Currently, there is a lot of material about the legislative process behind this law, including things that were at one time proposed and later amended, making it quite difficult to disentangle what actually became law.
I feel that all this material is out of place in this article; we should confine ourselves to the law as enacted, which is the only thing that actually affects the next election. Readers who want more detail about how the Act became law should be referred to the dedicated article on that subject. Anybody disagree? Grover cleveland ( talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I know it's been debated before, but since they seem to be fast becoming "mainstream" should they be added to the election box and so change it like how the election box is for the 2013 Local Elections page. In 2010 UKIP came fourth in term's of share of the vote with 3% support but since then the party has obviously surged in support and will most likely get at least low double digit figure's even if it does badly. In the run up to the local election's the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" (They refused to back any of them) but they included UKIP on that page, not as an "other" like the Green Party but as a main party. Last night on Channel 4 they said that "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included, I understand why people have been reluctant to include them before but now that mainstream media has actually started referring to them as equals alongside the Conservative's, Labour and the Liberal Democrat's and the fact that we've seen some real success for the party at the ballot box in these latest local election's as well as all the second place finishes we've seen in parliamentary by elections and the fact that they continue to at least match the Liberal Democrat's in the polls surely means that they should now be included in the infobox Guyb123321 ( talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Although UKiP are not going to win any seats, they will have an affect on the target seats and it would be useful to see their target list for comparative purposes. Secondly, it would be useful fo the table to show the number of votes as well as the percentage which would illustrate just how many people it takes to change a government in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.114 ( talk) 08:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Surely UKIP should be added to the infobox so that the article remains impartial in light of current affairs. This would keep in line with procedure for election articles in other countries (e.g. Italy 2013, in regard to M5S) 86.179.144.252 ( talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I believe every party contesting a seat should be included as the smaller parties also have a reasonable chance of getting into government. If the most popular party wins just a handful of seats short of a majority I imagine any of, for example, the SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Northern Ireland parties might get on board to form a coalition government. Cymrodor ( talk) 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't support, or vote for, UKIP, but this is getting silly. The latest opinion poll tonight has
Labour 35% Conservative 24% UKIP 22% Lib Dem 11%
On that basis they are plainly among, at least, the main four parties contesting the next election. They have double the support of one of the parties which is listed as a mainstream contender in this article. I take the criticism that their support may erode by, or in, the actual campaign, but that can be addressed nearer the time. Doing so pre-emptively seems to me to be engaging in WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. 2.29.219.151 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I do think the fact that UKIP have consistently beat the Liberal Democrat's in EVERY SINGLE poll taken since the local election's and according to the graph below they are on the rise does warrant their inclusion in the infobox. Also the fact that the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" & included UKIP on that page, (not as an "other" like the Green Party) but as a main party and also the fact that Channel 4 now is saying thing's like "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included just show's that they are now a main party and should be considered as one.
The fact is whether you want to go on election results (4th in the last general election, 2nd in last european election, 3rd in percentage vote/4th in seat's at last local election's) or if you wan't to go on the fact that they are now being included by the mainstream media as one of the main party's or if you wan't to look at polling result's which is showing them consistently beating the Lib Dem's. In conclusion it all seems to point to them deserving a place on the infobox along with the other three party's. Guyb123321 ( talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The arguments about UKIP's chances of winning a seat seem irrelevant. Many other parties with sitting MPs and which will again have MPs elected in 2015 are not included on this page, which I believe is wrong (see my commments above). Cymrodor ( talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Due to some very useless editing, the very badly written UKIP box has been put inbetween the conservatives and libdems, although labour has much more of a majority. Do not remove labour. If you MUST insert UKIP, put in the box properly. I recommend you look at the next EU election page, they have done it much better there if you wish to include UKIP <fontcolor="#8000FF">Jacob
Given the discussion in the sections above, it seems to me that the editing community leans in favour of adding UKIP to the infobox. Personally, I think -- given how the media are now reporting the situation and the actions taken by some pollsters, i.e. on what WP:RS are doing -- that it is now time to do so. However, Richard BB recently suggested that there was "a consensus against adding them in there". I'm taking a break from Wikipedia soon until later in the month, but I thought I'd kick off a discussion to try and clarify people's views on this matter. Bondegezou ( talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
No there is clearly no consenus for parliamentary elections to the house of Commons as they have NO SEATS, but they are sensibly added to the European Parliamentary Elections infobox. Sport and politics ( talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
(out dent) There is clearly no consensus for addition and their addition is simply media coverage and a few opinion polls putting them in double figures.As doctorb has said there is no uniform swing and there is no guarantee of seats. There is no comaprison between previous election infoboxes and future election infoboxes and previous way things have been done are not a precedent binding on how this article must behave. I would take a look at similar election inforboxes on local elections take Isle of Wight before the election there was no inclusion on the Island Independents even though they stood in nearly every seat and if opinion polls had been undertaken should have been shown to have a high level of support. That info box only included the top two parties the party of the official opposition the Conservatives and the Island Independents who took control albeit as a minority) UKIP Labour and Libdems are not included even though they won seats and UKIP got a fair chunk of votes. Adding UKIP here just based on doing well in local elections recently and opinion polls is not a firm basis for anything, if their support collapses do we remove them or keep them as they were once riding high no we do not add based on opinion polls as they are not representations of the electorate. Do we add the referendum party to the 1997 GE box because they finished fourth and got loads of votes. No we have not and nor did we add them before the election. This addition is just nonsense. If UKIP are added here considering they have ZERO seats and therefor no representationin the House of Commons it could easily be argued that the parties represented eg the DUP SNP Greens Respect Sinn Fien should be added to the infobox. I see no arguments for their inclusion, even though those parties are represented in the House of Commons and UKIP have no representation. The house of Commons is not a PR house it is an FPTP house so it is seats won and not votes garnered. Addition of only UKIP is therefore ludicrous.
I'm exhausted by this constant back and forth nonsense. So I've added UKIP. Let's move on to working together on more important things - constituency articles, Bills and Acts of Parliament, ANYTHING - rather than this trivial claptrap doktorb words deeds 12:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Should we create articles showing the results of each election? I don't mean we have to make 650 separate articles, but we could break it up like UK Polling Report does: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire & Humber, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern, Southwest, Southeast, and London. Thoughts? SOXROX ( talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
The status quo is built on the obvious notion that until now, Britain has had three major national parties, so those have been the parties listed. Two of the main criteria people have used to justify the status quo are the related questions of seats held and previous election results. The first is fairly problematic. In the UK, a lot of parties hold seats, so many in fact that the infobox couldn't hold them all. And trying to draw a line between the top three parties and the others can actually be quite difficult. The Lib Dems have only been above 5% of seats since the 1997 election after spending multiple elections below that line. Few would argue that the Lib Dems should be excluded, so where would the line be drawn?
More generally, the problem with using the previous election's results alone is that it ignores anything and everything that has happened since the last election. That just can't be right in an article that is about the next election, not the previous one.
While I do not think seats and previous elections are right as a sole measure, I do think they are important, and I will come back to that later.
I believe share of the vote is important. Even if a party wins few or no seats, if it has a high vote share, it is an important part of the story of the election. For example, if a party takes 10% nationally, but fails to win a seat, it almost certainly played spoiler in a number of seats for at least one party, and therefore affected the outcome of the election. I think it would be reasonable, after an election, if a party included were that took 1% of the seats and 5% of the vote, or just 10% even without seats. I'm not stating this as concrete proposal, but merely pointing out that vote share matters, even in a first-past-the-post jurisdiction.
But what about before elections? Opinion polls are viewed with suspicion by many, and small parties sometimes surge before an election, but collapse later on. These are genuine, but I think the first should be ignored since polling is the best indicator we have of electoral strength before an election. The second could be addressed by only including a party that has consistently polled above a given threshold for a given period. Threshold should be set so as to include parties that would create a situation like the one in the last paragraph, e.g., playing spoiler. To do so on a wide enough basis to matter, that would have to be at least 5%, but perhaps even 10%. The duration has to be long enough to avoid blips, but short enough to meaningful in the limited time between elections.
I also think we should consider a reset when the writs drop, only including parties that polled well enough in the two or three months beforehand and sticking with that lineup until the election is over unless something really bonkers happens.
So here is my proposal: In the pre-election period, the parties included in the previous elections should be included. Parties that consistently poll above 10% for six months should be added and remain until at least the writs drop unless their vote crashes so utterly that it makes no sense to retain them. At the point the writs drop, we include only the parties that have consistently polled above 10% in the past three months or were in the last election's infobox. I believe in a regularly scheduled election, the writ will drop in April, so perhaps the cutoff for such elections should be 1 January. - Rrius ( talk) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Incidentally, for those keeping score, UKIP was below 10% as often as it was above it from December 2012 to March, and has been consistently above since then, so by this proposal, UKIP would remain out until September at the earliest. On the 5% measure, it would have gained admission to the infobox around last September. My source is File:UK opinion polling 2010-2015.png. - Rrius ( talk) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution ( WP:DR). Mark Arsten ( talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an ongoing and EXTREMELY (note the emphasis) contentious debate on the inclusion of UKIP in the infobox. For those of you who do not know, UKIP (United Kingdom Independenc Party) has made a recent rise in British politics. In the aftermath of the 2013 United Kingdom local elections, where UKIP received the second highest amount of votes, many have been arguing to put them on the table with the top 3 parties, Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic. While UKIP and the Liberal Democrats have similar polling numbers, UKIP still has no MPs in Parliament, where as the the LDs have 57 and are in the government. Should UKIP be included in the table? Feel free to participate in the discussion, and please let it be a civil coversation. SOXROX ( talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Comment Just because a political party may have an impact on the next general election it doesn't mean they will. It is far too soon to determine whether UKIP are actually in the middle of a mid term jump (at the expense of the mid term Tory party) or whether it is actually a long term trend or change in voting intentions. It will not be possible to determine their impact on the subject of this article until much nearer the election (and we see if there is a set of debates which they are included in). There is little actual media mention of the next general election at the moment and only a fraction of it treating UKIP as anything more than a potential player in it. The one change that has happened of late ( since April 2012) is that UKIP is now regularly included in the questions asked by the opinion pollsters and therefore by the media outlets that pay to have them performed. This could just as easily stop UKIP they were to lose heavily at a local or euro election and cease to be an ongoing story. Remember, despite the fact that opinion pollsters ask 'How would you vote if there were a General Election held tomorrow?' or something similar the reason they are asked is to judge the current political climate and not as a prediction of the next election.
I have removed the RfC tag as it seems clear now that consensus opposes UKIP's inclusion (at least, for now). Bondegezou ( talk) 09:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
If I might try to summarise debate above... There is a current consensus against including UKIP in the infobox (although a few said 'too soon' and seemed open to re-considering the matter later). The debate on whether to remove the infobox entirely was more evenly matched, but I think it fair to conclude there is no consensus for change and, therefore, that the infobox should stay for now. Rrius suggested some rules for when to include a party in the infobox, but these did not attract consensus support.
So, where does that leave us? The infobox should stay and include only the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. I cannot see much appetite for re-opening the debate any time soon, but various suggestions have been made for the sort of events/coverage that might warrant a fresh look. Bondegezou ( talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The to-and-fro arguments going on three years can be traced to one thing - the infobox. By removing the box until the election is over, we can move on to mor important and constructive topics doktorb words deeds 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) This is looking more like Rrius against everyone else. This cannot be turned into a battle ground. The RfC is showing a clear move towards not including UKIP and this discussion is showing favour for removing the whole infobox in its entirety. Consensus is not unanimity. Rrius I am going to say this and it is not an attack but, one editor cannot hold a whole page hostage by long posts on a very very minor point and the engaging in edit warring and the posting of edit summaries which assume bad faith. This is beginning to feel a lot like article ownership. As doktorb has said this has go on too long, if it continues I will suggest a topic ban for Rrius to prevent disruption and to allow for some calmness and stability to overwhelm this article. Sport and politics ( talk) 13:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Might I suggest it is safe to conclude that there is no consensus in favour of removing the infobox? Bondegezou ( talk) 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Given the constant debates about UKIP culminating in the recent RfC, I have created an FAQ at the top which should help put further discussions to rest. Please add to it if you feel there is anything that needs including. — Richard BB 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems that just like in the US, where it is very common to have polls of individual congressional districts, this is getting increasingly common in the UK.
For the Eastleigh by election earlier this year, 5 polls were taken over the space of a month and it seems like this trend is only going to increase.
My question is not if we should include polls of individual seats, but where should we put them?
It says here ( http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/ukip-poll-boost-thanet)that UKIP is commissioning 8 polls of marginal seats with Survation and they would be very useful to include somewhere Guyb123321 ( talk) 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to see if I can find out more about the polls and their methodology and see if they meet usual standards for these things. That seems like a key question. Will report back! Bondegezou ( talk) 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
OK so the feeling I'm getting is these polls should just be included on the individual constituencies page. I think these polls that have been done seem totally legitimate considering the polls were done by trusted polling service, Survation and they also did not predict a blowout UKIP win, actually in the released poll UKIP is losing 35-30 to Labour with the Conservatives a very close third on 28 Guyb123321 ( talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I have to point out the mistake of using the national term United Kingdom to describe this nation as today, as if it were around before 1921. It wasn't. If you are referring to a nation called UK in respect of the next, 2015, general election, it cannot be acceptable to use UK in the context of pre-1921 ele tions in the British Isles. Yes, there was a UK, but a completely different nation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
It is this paragraph at the end of the opening section I object to as it is suddenly discussing the history of 2 different nations, one current, one nearly a century defunct and of territory now made up by two unrelated nations, one in the EU Eurozone and one not.
---
"This will be the 55th general election for the United Kingdom since 1801 (earlier elections took place for parliaments in Great Britain and Ireland), though the resultant Parliament will be the 56th, as the first Parliament came about after the co-option of members from the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland."
The terms used make the paragraph untrue and not relevant to anything. It's a very simple point indeed. If you're going to discuss former British nations in an article about the near century old UK and a 2015 general election, it isn't acceptable to refer to the current nation a if it were a different one as of 1801. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 ( talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I want to make it clear that this discussion is not to stray on to the topic of UKIP being included in the info box, that is a seperate discussion. This thread is about target seats. It seems incredibly strange that UKIP have not got a list of target seats on this page when parties such as Respect and the Greens have got a target seat each. There is already a significant number of UKIP target seats based on the United Kingdom local elections, 2013 and recent Parliamentary by-elections. It is also worth taking into account local council by-elections, the party clearly is, using those as an indication as to where they will most intensely target their resources. Indeed it is likely that more will emerge after the next local elections. There are several ways of credibly identifying UKIP target seats.
So far UKIP's 2013 "winning" seats and other realistic target seats include:
I suggest that this list of constituencies is added to the target seats table for UKIP. I can not see any reason why UKIP's target seats shouldn't be included, especially since this can all be sourced. The question is how do we incorporate it into the article. Do we create a new 'special' table for UKIP or whether we should incorporate UKIP into the existing table for the 4 main parties. I would favor the second option. Given the party's rise in the polls, the by-election results, the council election results it seems strange not to include their target seats. MassiveBagOf... ( talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Clearly the local elections have much psephological and media significance, but I don't see why you are so insistent on them being some firm cut-off. If we get a bunch of reliable sources sensibly talking about meaningful UKIP target seats before then, I say we include them (in some form). We probably won't... but, indeed, I wouldn't expect such until much closer to the next General Election. I just don't see the next set of locals as some key cut-off date. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
p >> Merkel addresses Britain's parliament( Lihaas ( talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).
"Next United Kingdom general election" is not an appropriate title; it will go out of date, and need complete rewriting every 5 years. The title of the article, never mind the content, violates wp:dated. It would seem far more appropriate for the actual title to be 2015 UK General Election; if "Next United Kingdom general election" is to be kept (I would drop it), it can be periodically redirected to the appropriately-titled article (2015, 202, etc.). Pol098 ( talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, the page can't be named 'United Kingdom general election, 2015' because we'd have to be definitively sure that it is to take place in 2015. Maybe the change can be made in late December this year.
However, it'd be wrong to say that I am wholly convinced by the current title. Back in the early days of this article, when it existed before the 2010 election, it was known as the '55th United Kingdom general election'. In some ways, I prefer that title. It has the definition that some users seem to think is currently lacking. I did actually make a comment about this before the article was renamed with "next". That went unnoticed, however.
It may not be the perfect idea, but I think that it could have advantages. Red v Blue 22:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd clarify that the point of my original comment was that "next" ("recent", "soon", "now", ...) in an article goes out of date and makes it read very oddly. A fairly prominent article such as this is less likely to remain uncorrected, but I've found plenty of articles referring (in 2013) to "the forthcoming visit [in 2008]", etc. An actual example: "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008" was the first sentence of an article in November 2013. The WP:DATED rules used to give a rule of thumb that an article should still read sensibly in 5 years. "Next" in an article title is particularly visible. Pol098 ( talk) 10:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)