![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
There is a substantial section on Tim Farron's alleged views on LGBT issues, which he has repeatedly denied with references to same. To leave this in without including relevant equivalent information about other Party leaders is an indication of bias and should, imho, either be removed or include reference to the other leaders, eg. [Theresa May https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826], in order to retain NPOV and not be seen to be campaigning for any side. -- AlisonW ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I took the wrong approach in getting my point across. The range of sources I'm not too concerned with (more is always better, of course). My point is its inclusion in the first place. There doesn't seem to be a controversy or debate going on about TM's view on gay rights, which is why I wonder why we'd include other than to defend Tim Farron. — Richard BB 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick appendment to say I echo Detellett's words. — Richard BB 12:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It briefly appeared as if the LibDems would stand against the Speaker, but that's not happening. We had a short paragraph about it, but I deleted it a few days ago as a non-event. Ebonelm recently restored the material here, saying "interesting information regarding convention".
It would be interesting, I suggest, were it happening, but it's not. It was reported by a local paper, but was reversed the next day. I've not seen any significant coverage of this. It just looks like a massive non-event to me. Can we re-delete? We can simply have a sentence about how parties don't usually stand against the Speaker if the convention warrants explanation. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Bondegezou; it seems to be a total non-story, and I'm not sure if it's even been replicated outside of this one local paper. — Richard BB 17:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In the Campaign section, I'm wondering if splitting by parties is being overly restrictive. For example, rather than my recent edits it would have been neater to have said "Following the local elections, Labour proposed [tax policy], the Conservatives focused on [mental health policy] while the Lib Dems committed to [pensions policy]. The Archbishops also intervened, raising..." etc.
Equally I'm not sure adding to the "Background" section is sufficient. I see in the 2010 general election page that they had an "April" and "May" section. Do you think we could repeat? We could keep the "Party campaigns" section if they relate only to eg personnel and machinery, which is really what it started as if I recall right. SocialDem ( talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The NHS - though not mentioned at all - is probably the second biggest issue in this election (after Brexit). Today we have had the Green Party standing down, and Labour and Lib Dems saying they won't campaign against Dr Irving (National Health Action Party), who is trying to unseat Jeremy Hunt (current Health Minister). 109.147.66.215 ( talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The bar suffer from the usual problem when a party has a very small number of seats : the lenght its percentage give him is smaller than the lenght of the letter written below. The latter then push the colored lenght longer than it should, reducing the others party lenghts. It is visible there by looking at the little arrow above the middle, showing the 50 % of seats limit. Before my edit, the Conservative bar is under the majority limit, when it should be slightly past it given the results of the election. After my edit, it is past the arrow. I even wonder if the length of one letter may already be too much for LD seats, the lettering needing to be made smaller.-- Aréat ( talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should detach the party labels from the coloured bars altogether? What if we just had the colours, perhaps with a separate legend next to it? -- Tannlos ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
330 | 28 | 9 | 54 | 229 |
Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Scottish National Party Other
Does this sit well with you all? Feel free to edit -- Tannlos ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I need help setting up the pages United Kingdom general election, 2017 (England), United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Wales) and United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Northern Ireland) as nothing has been done so far and are currently redirects, I have tried to get the English page going but there is so much to do and I keep getting reverted, we need these pages and Scotland's page is currently well set up and there are separate pages for the 2015 election in the constituent countries so why not been done so far for the 2017 election especially the Northern Ireland article hasn't even been set up yet. Please can we sort this out. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4CC:B7F5:EAFD:EFA4 ( talk) 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
Only i must say that we have to decide officialy the images for the infobox. Stop the picture fighting now, before protecting the article. -- DogofJustice ( talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
In the "Parties and candidates" section, we have one sub-section on Great Britain and one on Northern Ireland. The NI table, after listing the "major" parties, then lists "Other parties contesting", 4 of them. I think those are all the other parties in NI standing in more than one seat.
The GB table also lists "Other parties contesting", and then just mentions one additional party, the Scottish Green Party. However, the Scottish Green Party are only standing in 3 seats IIRC. Other parties would seem to warrant mention just as much or more so, like National Health Action Party, Women's Equality Party, English Democrats and People Before Profit Alliance. So, what should we include and what should we exclude? We could go for any parties in the Template:British political parties that are standing in >1 seat in this general election...? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but just thought it would be better to discuss this. Why exactly shouldn't either of that be added to the article? It's pretty relevant. 49.200.244.181 ( talk) 10:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll let those familiar with UK law handle this, but this article may be affected by the following current event: 2017 Manchester Arena incident. There are reports that the PM's general election campaign may have been suspended. — Gestrid ( talk) 01:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose on top of the four national page articles which no one has bothered to do and been reverted at my every attend I would like to articles for each of the twelve regional areas of the UK, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish articles would retrospectively be classed as part of the regional articles however I propose we create nine new regional article pages for the English regions and create graphics for each of these articles (i.e.Separate regional maps) as one page to cover all 650 constituencies is simply too big we need to break the results down into manageable chucks and the regional option as opposed to results county which was the model for the 2005 and 2010 results is better as the constituencies have to be drawn up to respect the regional broundries. In essence we would need 12 regional maps creating as well has the articles themselves. With the model we would be able to list all the seats within that region and which party gained or lost each individual seat. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:490E:DCE:5A6:5AB0 ( talk) 12:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC))
Can anyone give an explanation of why this person should be regarded as a "high profile" candidate worthy of mention (together with his family)? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nigel Farage is listed as the UKIP leader, when in fact it's Paul Nuttall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.11.65 ( talk) 22:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Give 5% more to the conservatives, and 5% less to LibDems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.219.232 ( talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
There's been a lot of talk about the squeezing of the smaller parties and how Labour and the Conservatives combined vote share will exceed 80% for the first time in decades. I think this is notable and should be added. How long before the percentages are confirmed?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 3 in the infobox is giving a "cite error: The named reference adamsseat was invoked but never defined". I've looked at the source code but I can't see what's wrong. Can somebody that understands "refn" fix it, please? 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Theresa May has remained PM under a minority Con/Tory Government. Please just update this now (rather than you Labour supporters here still holding out the last hope that Jeremy Corbyn might still be able to form a rival Government of his own with a "Progressive Alliance" with amongst others Sinn Féin)! -- 87.102.116.36 ( talk) 12:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
UKIP are referred to as the "seventh party" despite having no seats. The Greens and Plaid Cymru both won seats and therefore should be the seventh and eight parties. 86.178.215.25 ( talk) 18:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed UKIP. We could add all 3 but I don't think they have enough votes or seats to justify it. Dayshade ( talk) 18:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's noticeable that the photographs of all the leaders except Jeremy Corbyn are formal portraits. Is this because there isn't such an image of Corbyn? Deb ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The Pirate Party link in the Results section should link to the Pirate Party UK page ( /info/en/?search=Pirate_Party_UK), it currently links to the "Pirate Party" page ( /info/en/?search=Pirate_Party) which is just about the concept of a Pirate party. -- OldNewBorrowedBlue ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the 2017 geographic voting distribution map. Similar to the one listed on the 2015 election page 'Geographic voting distribution' section United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Geographic_voting_distribution
2015 version
2017 version
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelco de Vlieger ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The table keeps on getting updated which is alright but for ref we really should have Three weeks table check unchanged and may the last week before voting table just like 2015.
The first-past-the-post system used in UK general elections means that the number of seats won is not closely related to vote share. Thus, several approaches arre used to convert polling data and other information into seat predictions. The table below lists some of the predictions.
Parties | Election Forecast [2] as of 15 May 2017 |
Electoral Calculus [3] as of 15 May 2017 |
Lord Ashcroft [4] as of 12 May 2017 |
Elections Etc [5] as of 12 May 2017 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservatives | 414 | 409 | 406-415 | 391 | |
Labour Party | 155 | 167 | 152-164 | 170 | |
SNP | 53 | 46 | 45-48 | 49 | |
Liberal Democrats | 6 | 7 | 8-14 | 13 | |
Plaid Cymru | 2 | 3 | 4-5 | 3 | |
Green Party | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
UKIP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Others | 1 [6] | 18 [7] | 19 | N/A | |
Overall result (probability) | Conservative majority (100%) |
Conservative majority (83%) |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority (91%) |
References
This chart treats different parties differently. For example, the word "Conservatives" are what individuals are. But other parties are listed by their name such as "Labour Party". It should be one way or another. A hypothetical example would be "Communist Party" and "Communists". But then, Wikipedia is just wacky, trying to pretend it is scholarly. Chicamcam ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If adding Labour, SNP and the Lib.Dems popular votes - then they have both more votes than Tories and a majority of all votes. Couldn't this be mentioned in the article ? A second issue - is it really true that May wants to tax demented people ? If true, that sounds just as crazy as when Thatcher wanted all to pay the same amount of taxes (if I understood that matter correctly, should all tax-payers pay the same amount of Pounds in taxes, totally unrelated to incomes. Which became thew beginning of her fall). Why and how to tax for instance different levels of dementia ? And are the Ulster Unionists sharing such ideas ? Boeing720 ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC) I haven't the foggiest idea of how my contribution became located inside an earlier one, just by the way. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Really setting the cat among the pigeons, this: Ruth Davidson planning Scottish Tory breakaway as she challenges Theresa May's Brexit plan. There are 13 Scottish MPs, conveniently outnumbering the DUP seats (10). Note also the LGBT issue. This all probably needs mentioning somewhere. Not sure whether in this article or elsewhere. What articles naturally cover follow-up consequences from this election? Carcharoth ( talk) 05:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
54 seats before election - 21 seats = 33 seats, not 35.
Therefore the SNP lost 19 seats. Yet the article lists them as losing 21. Unless there's something I'm missing here.
Or perhaps, the number of seats before the election is incorrect instead (it should therefore be listed as 56, not 54).
86.161.53.118 ( talk) 10:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be more appropriate to have the leader of sinn fein in northen ireland rather then gerry adams?
The leader of SF is Michelle O'Neil, you're right, she should be listed rather than Gerry Adams who is the President of SF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.190.90 ( talk) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Huffpost reports them at 4 seats (& google confirms). As a non-controversial party, it is very probable there will be coalition negotiations between the Conservatives and Sinn Féin as well as Cymru & DUP 67.86.28.255 ( talk) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I would change Sinn Fein for Plaid.Cymru since Sinn Fein are abstentionists and will not even take their seats 109.175.185.120 ( talk) 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please change 'pp' to '%' in the infobox to keep in line with other elections. 49.200.244.172 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Also the 318 figure doesn't include the speaker. Maybe you have not been following the media outlets. Seats: Con 318 Lab 261 Snp 35 Lib 12 Dup 10 Sin 7 Pdc 4 Grn 1 Spkr 1 Undeclared 1 (in London) Total 650 49.200.244.176 ( talk)
The Conservatives should have 318 seats instead of 317, according to Google:
Conservatives: 318
Labour: 261
SNP: 35
Lib-Dems: 12
DUP: 10
SF: 7
PC: 4
Green: 1
Speaker: 1
Independent: 1
The total is 650 here. If the Conservatives have 317, who won the missing seat?
86.161.53.118 ( talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do some sources claim that the Lib Dems gained 4 seats and some claim they gained 3 seats? The Guardian says a net gain of three (won 8, lost 5, new total of 12), while the BBC says a new total of 12 and a net gain of 4? Carcharoth ( talk) 08:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015, the Lib Dems had 8 members elected but 9 members at dissolution. Was there a by-election somewhere? Yes, it was Richmond Park that went from Conservative to Liberal. So it depends whether you report from the totals at the previous election, or from the totals at dissolution. The totals at dissolution make more sense. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The sum of seat changes adding up to -1 might be because the Speaker's seat is included in the previous Conservative total of 330 but not in the election total of 317? Carcharoth ( talk) 09:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. The UKIP change (should be zero, as Carswell switched back to being an independent) is not treated consistently either. Bit of a mess at the moment. Someone needs to sort it all out in a consistent manner, following previous articles and following what the convention is. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the speaker, there are 9 groups represented in the new parliament. Wouldn't it be easiest and avoid any future arguments just to include them all? 77.101.115.119 ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Copeland is listed as being a seat which went from Labour to Conservative, but the Tories won it from Labour in the 2017 by-election, so it was a Conservative hold at the 2017 general election. Theresonator ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that it's been restored, even though it is factually inaccurate. In the 2017 general election, the seat was not a Labour to Conservative gain, because it was already a Conservative seat, having changed hands at the 2017 by-election. The seat was a Conservative hold. It was held by a Conservative MP before the 2017 election and it was held by a Conservative MP after the 2017 election! Can someone please delete it? Theresonator ( talk) 00:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I've deleted it again because it was factually inaccurate. Theresonator ( talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that the Conservative total vote is different on the BBC [4] because the BBC count the 34299 votes for Speaker John Bercow in his Buckinghamshire constituency. Is this worth a note? Is there a better source for the results data than news outlets such as the BBC? Ewen ( talk) 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Within the last two weeks (before 8 June 2017) I read an interview with David Davis (possibly in the Telegraph) where he takes credit for persuading a reluctant Theresa May to call a snap election. His reasoning was that the end phase of the Brexit negotiations in 2019 must not coincide with a British general election campaign, as this would give Brussels negotiators a strong hand ("they would have the UK over a barrel" I think is the phrase he used). It is important to add this background to the Wikipedia article.
Unfortunately however I cannot find the David Davis interview any more, neither via the Telegraph nor via Google. All I have is this more recent Telegraph article briefly "blaming" David Davis, [5] but without the specifics I mentioned above. Any help appreciated. Let us make Wikipedia great again. 86.170.123.79 ( talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Earlier this morning Mr Davis defended Mrs May’s decision to call a snap election saying it was in the “national interest”. He said: "We had to establish a mandate and secondly we had to have a parliament which gave us time to do the job. "This was an election in the national interest. "People say we wanted a landslide. "It was never about that, it was about the mandate." 86.170.123.5 ( talk) 06:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a footnote has been added about Copeland here. Might a similar footnote appended to the 'Liberal Democrat to Conservative' section header help explain to people why the Richmond Park result is not being shown here? Maybe similar footnotes for the two SNP seats and the UKIP seat (these three went independent for differing reasons)? Some of this is covered in the background section, which mentions the various by-elections. Does that cover all the differences between 'seat changes between elections' versus 'seat changes after dissolution'? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
the conservatives have 317 seats plus the speaker so its reported as 318 in some outlets. however the wiki page states they have 318 seats not including the speaker which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:7882:b600:6076:f32f:5300:7527 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This had been corrected but its now wrong again. It now states the conservatives have 317* seats. and then the *appendix states that this includes the speaker which would mean the conservatives have 316 seats but they in-fact have 317
Suggest including month (June) in the title of the page, as there will likely be another this year. 31.221.37.8 ( talk) 16:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section has been blanked as a courtesy. |
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
There is a substantial section on Tim Farron's alleged views on LGBT issues, which he has repeatedly denied with references to same. To leave this in without including relevant equivalent information about other Party leaders is an indication of bias and should, imho, either be removed or include reference to the other leaders, eg. [Theresa May https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/divisions?policy=826], in order to retain NPOV and not be seen to be campaigning for any side. -- AlisonW ( talk) 14:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps I took the wrong approach in getting my point across. The range of sources I'm not too concerned with (more is always better, of course). My point is its inclusion in the first place. There doesn't seem to be a controversy or debate going on about TM's view on gay rights, which is why I wonder why we'd include other than to defend Tim Farron. — Richard BB 12:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Just a quick appendment to say I echo Detellett's words. — Richard BB 12:55, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
It briefly appeared as if the LibDems would stand against the Speaker, but that's not happening. We had a short paragraph about it, but I deleted it a few days ago as a non-event. Ebonelm recently restored the material here, saying "interesting information regarding convention".
It would be interesting, I suggest, were it happening, but it's not. It was reported by a local paper, but was reversed the next day. I've not seen any significant coverage of this. It just looks like a massive non-event to me. Can we re-delete? We can simply have a sentence about how parties don't usually stand against the Speaker if the convention warrants explanation. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:27, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Bondegezou; it seems to be a total non-story, and I'm not sure if it's even been replicated outside of this one local paper. — Richard BB 17:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
In the Campaign section, I'm wondering if splitting by parties is being overly restrictive. For example, rather than my recent edits it would have been neater to have said "Following the local elections, Labour proposed [tax policy], the Conservatives focused on [mental health policy] while the Lib Dems committed to [pensions policy]. The Archbishops also intervened, raising..." etc.
Equally I'm not sure adding to the "Background" section is sufficient. I see in the 2010 general election page that they had an "April" and "May" section. Do you think we could repeat? We could keep the "Party campaigns" section if they relate only to eg personnel and machinery, which is really what it started as if I recall right. SocialDem ( talk) 18:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
The NHS - though not mentioned at all - is probably the second biggest issue in this election (after Brexit). Today we have had the Green Party standing down, and Labour and Lib Dems saying they won't campaign against Dr Irving (National Health Action Party), who is trying to unseat Jeremy Hunt (current Health Minister). 109.147.66.215 ( talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The bar suffer from the usual problem when a party has a very small number of seats : the lenght its percentage give him is smaller than the lenght of the letter written below. The latter then push the colored lenght longer than it should, reducing the others party lenghts. It is visible there by looking at the little arrow above the middle, showing the 50 % of seats limit. Before my edit, the Conservative bar is under the majority limit, when it should be slightly past it given the results of the election. After my edit, it is past the arrow. I even wonder if the length of one letter may already be too much for LD seats, the lettering needing to be made smaller.-- Aréat ( talk) 20:34, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we should detach the party labels from the coloured bars altogether? What if we just had the colours, perhaps with a separate legend next to it? -- Tannlos ( talk) 20:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
330 | 28 | 9 | 54 | 229 |
Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Scottish National Party Other
Does this sit well with you all? Feel free to edit -- Tannlos ( talk) 21:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I need help setting up the pages United Kingdom general election, 2017 (England), United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Wales) and United Kingdom general election, 2017 (Northern Ireland) as nothing has been done so far and are currently redirects, I have tried to get the English page going but there is so much to do and I keep getting reverted, we need these pages and Scotland's page is currently well set up and there are separate pages for the 2015 election in the constituent countries so why not been done so far for the 2017 election especially the Northern Ireland article hasn't even been set up yet. Please can we sort this out. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4CC:B7F5:EAFD:EFA4 ( talk) 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC))
Only i must say that we have to decide officialy the images for the infobox. Stop the picture fighting now, before protecting the article. -- DogofJustice ( talk) 14:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
In the "Parties and candidates" section, we have one sub-section on Great Britain and one on Northern Ireland. The NI table, after listing the "major" parties, then lists "Other parties contesting", 4 of them. I think those are all the other parties in NI standing in more than one seat.
The GB table also lists "Other parties contesting", and then just mentions one additional party, the Scottish Green Party. However, the Scottish Green Party are only standing in 3 seats IIRC. Other parties would seem to warrant mention just as much or more so, like National Health Action Party, Women's Equality Party, English Democrats and People Before Profit Alliance. So, what should we include and what should we exclude? We could go for any parties in the Template:British political parties that are standing in >1 seat in this general election...? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Excuse me, but just thought it would be better to discuss this. Why exactly shouldn't either of that be added to the article? It's pretty relevant. 49.200.244.181 ( talk) 10:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'll let those familiar with UK law handle this, but this article may be affected by the following current event: 2017 Manchester Arena incident. There are reports that the PM's general election campaign may have been suspended. — Gestrid ( talk) 01:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to propose on top of the four national page articles which no one has bothered to do and been reverted at my every attend I would like to articles for each of the twelve regional areas of the UK, the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish articles would retrospectively be classed as part of the regional articles however I propose we create nine new regional article pages for the English regions and create graphics for each of these articles (i.e.Separate regional maps) as one page to cover all 650 constituencies is simply too big we need to break the results down into manageable chucks and the regional option as opposed to results county which was the model for the 2005 and 2010 results is better as the constituencies have to be drawn up to respect the regional broundries. In essence we would need 12 regional maps creating as well has the articles themselves. With the model we would be able to list all the seats within that region and which party gained or lost each individual seat. ( 2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:490E:DCE:5A6:5AB0 ( talk) 12:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC))
Can anyone give an explanation of why this person should be regarded as a "high profile" candidate worthy of mention (together with his family)? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 19:05, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Nigel Farage is listed as the UKIP leader, when in fact it's Paul Nuttall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.11.65 ( talk) 22:39, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Give 5% more to the conservatives, and 5% less to LibDems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.92.219.232 ( talk) 04:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
There's been a lot of talk about the squeezing of the smaller parties and how Labour and the Conservatives combined vote share will exceed 80% for the first time in decades. I think this is notable and should be added. How long before the percentages are confirmed?-- Pawnkingthree ( talk) 14:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Footnote 3 in the infobox is giving a "cite error: The named reference adamsseat was invoked but never defined". I've looked at the source code but I can't see what's wrong. Can somebody that understands "refn" fix it, please? 95.44.50.222 ( talk) 13:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Theresa May has remained PM under a minority Con/Tory Government. Please just update this now (rather than you Labour supporters here still holding out the last hope that Jeremy Corbyn might still be able to form a rival Government of his own with a "Progressive Alliance" with amongst others Sinn Féin)! -- 87.102.116.36 ( talk) 12:26, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
UKIP are referred to as the "seventh party" despite having no seats. The Greens and Plaid Cymru both won seats and therefore should be the seventh and eight parties. 86.178.215.25 ( talk) 18:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Removed UKIP. We could add all 3 but I don't think they have enough votes or seats to justify it. Dayshade ( talk) 18:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
It's noticeable that the photographs of all the leaders except Jeremy Corbyn are formal portraits. Is this because there isn't such an image of Corbyn? Deb ( talk) 09:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The Pirate Party link in the Results section should link to the Pirate Party UK page ( /info/en/?search=Pirate_Party_UK), it currently links to the "Pirate Party" page ( /info/en/?search=Pirate_Party) which is just about the concept of a Pirate party. -- OldNewBorrowedBlue ( talk) 18:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I have updated the 2017 geographic voting distribution map. Similar to the one listed on the 2015 election page 'Geographic voting distribution' section United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Geographic_voting_distribution
2015 version
2017 version
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eelco de Vlieger ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The table keeps on getting updated which is alright but for ref we really should have Three weeks table check unchanged and may the last week before voting table just like 2015.
The first-past-the-post system used in UK general elections means that the number of seats won is not closely related to vote share. Thus, several approaches arre used to convert polling data and other information into seat predictions. The table below lists some of the predictions.
Parties | Election Forecast [2] as of 15 May 2017 |
Electoral Calculus [3] as of 15 May 2017 |
Lord Ashcroft [4] as of 12 May 2017 |
Elections Etc [5] as of 12 May 2017 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservatives | 414 | 409 | 406-415 | 391 | |
Labour Party | 155 | 167 | 152-164 | 170 | |
SNP | 53 | 46 | 45-48 | 49 | |
Liberal Democrats | 6 | 7 | 8-14 | 13 | |
Plaid Cymru | 2 | 3 | 4-5 | 3 | |
Green Party | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
UKIP | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Others | 1 [6] | 18 [7] | 19 | N/A | |
Overall result (probability) | Conservative majority (100%) |
Conservative majority (83%) |
Conservative majority |
Conservative majority (91%) |
References
This chart treats different parties differently. For example, the word "Conservatives" are what individuals are. But other parties are listed by their name such as "Labour Party". It should be one way or another. A hypothetical example would be "Communist Party" and "Communists". But then, Wikipedia is just wacky, trying to pretend it is scholarly. Chicamcam ( talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
If adding Labour, SNP and the Lib.Dems popular votes - then they have both more votes than Tories and a majority of all votes. Couldn't this be mentioned in the article ? A second issue - is it really true that May wants to tax demented people ? If true, that sounds just as crazy as when Thatcher wanted all to pay the same amount of taxes (if I understood that matter correctly, should all tax-payers pay the same amount of Pounds in taxes, totally unrelated to incomes. Which became thew beginning of her fall). Why and how to tax for instance different levels of dementia ? And are the Ulster Unionists sharing such ideas ? Boeing720 ( talk) 00:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC) I haven't the foggiest idea of how my contribution became located inside an earlier one, just by the way. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Really setting the cat among the pigeons, this: Ruth Davidson planning Scottish Tory breakaway as she challenges Theresa May's Brexit plan. There are 13 Scottish MPs, conveniently outnumbering the DUP seats (10). Note also the LGBT issue. This all probably needs mentioning somewhere. Not sure whether in this article or elsewhere. What articles naturally cover follow-up consequences from this election? Carcharoth ( talk) 05:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
54 seats before election - 21 seats = 33 seats, not 35.
Therefore the SNP lost 19 seats. Yet the article lists them as losing 21. Unless there's something I'm missing here.
Or perhaps, the number of seats before the election is incorrect instead (it should therefore be listed as 56, not 54).
86.161.53.118 ( talk) 10:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Wouldnt it be more appropriate to have the leader of sinn fein in northen ireland rather then gerry adams?
The leader of SF is Michelle O'Neil, you're right, she should be listed rather than Gerry Adams who is the President of SF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.190.90 ( talk) 13:28, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Huffpost reports them at 4 seats (& google confirms). As a non-controversial party, it is very probable there will be coalition negotiations between the Conservatives and Sinn Féin as well as Cymru & DUP 67.86.28.255 ( talk) 08:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I would change Sinn Fein for Plaid.Cymru since Sinn Fein are abstentionists and will not even take their seats 109.175.185.120 ( talk) 13:35, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Please change 'pp' to '%' in the infobox to keep in line with other elections. 49.200.244.172 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Also the 318 figure doesn't include the speaker. Maybe you have not been following the media outlets. Seats: Con 318 Lab 261 Snp 35 Lib 12 Dup 10 Sin 7 Pdc 4 Grn 1 Spkr 1 Undeclared 1 (in London) Total 650 49.200.244.176 ( talk)
The Conservatives should have 318 seats instead of 317, according to Google:
Conservatives: 318
Labour: 261
SNP: 35
Lib-Dems: 12
DUP: 10
SF: 7
PC: 4
Green: 1
Speaker: 1
Independent: 1
The total is 650 here. If the Conservatives have 317, who won the missing seat?
86.161.53.118 ( talk) 10:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Why do some sources claim that the Lib Dems gained 4 seats and some claim they gained 3 seats? The Guardian says a net gain of three (won 8, lost 5, new total of 12), while the BBC says a new total of 12 and a net gain of 4? Carcharoth ( talk) 08:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking at List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015, the Lib Dems had 8 members elected but 9 members at dissolution. Was there a by-election somewhere? Yes, it was Richmond Park that went from Conservative to Liberal. So it depends whether you report from the totals at the previous election, or from the totals at dissolution. The totals at dissolution make more sense. Carcharoth ( talk) 08:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
The sum of seat changes adding up to -1 might be because the Speaker's seat is included in the previous Conservative total of 330 but not in the election total of 317? Carcharoth ( talk) 09:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear. The UKIP change (should be zero, as Carswell switched back to being an independent) is not treated consistently either. Bit of a mess at the moment. Someone needs to sort it all out in a consistent manner, following previous articles and following what the convention is. Carcharoth ( talk) 09:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring the speaker, there are 9 groups represented in the new parliament. Wouldn't it be easiest and avoid any future arguments just to include them all? 77.101.115.119 ( talk) 17:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Copeland is listed as being a seat which went from Labour to Conservative, but the Tories won it from Labour in the 2017 by-election, so it was a Conservative hold at the 2017 general election. Theresonator ( talk) 20:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I see that it's been restored, even though it is factually inaccurate. In the 2017 general election, the seat was not a Labour to Conservative gain, because it was already a Conservative seat, having changed hands at the 2017 by-election. The seat was a Conservative hold. It was held by a Conservative MP before the 2017 election and it was held by a Conservative MP after the 2017 election! Can someone please delete it? Theresonator ( talk) 00:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC) I've deleted it again because it was factually inaccurate. Theresonator ( talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I notice that the Conservative total vote is different on the BBC [4] because the BBC count the 34299 votes for Speaker John Bercow in his Buckinghamshire constituency. Is this worth a note? Is there a better source for the results data than news outlets such as the BBC? Ewen ( talk) 09:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Within the last two weeks (before 8 June 2017) I read an interview with David Davis (possibly in the Telegraph) where he takes credit for persuading a reluctant Theresa May to call a snap election. His reasoning was that the end phase of the Brexit negotiations in 2019 must not coincide with a British general election campaign, as this would give Brussels negotiators a strong hand ("they would have the UK over a barrel" I think is the phrase he used). It is important to add this background to the Wikipedia article.
Unfortunately however I cannot find the David Davis interview any more, neither via the Telegraph nor via Google. All I have is this more recent Telegraph article briefly "blaming" David Davis, [5] but without the specifics I mentioned above. Any help appreciated. Let us make Wikipedia great again. 86.170.123.79 ( talk) 11:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Earlier this morning Mr Davis defended Mrs May’s decision to call a snap election saying it was in the “national interest”. He said: "We had to establish a mandate and secondly we had to have a parliament which gave us time to do the job. "This was an election in the national interest. "People say we wanted a landslide. "It was never about that, it was about the mandate." 86.170.123.5 ( talk) 06:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I see a footnote has been added about Copeland here. Might a similar footnote appended to the 'Liberal Democrat to Conservative' section header help explain to people why the Richmond Park result is not being shown here? Maybe similar footnotes for the two SNP seats and the UKIP seat (these three went independent for differing reasons)? Some of this is covered in the background section, which mentions the various by-elections. Does that cover all the differences between 'seat changes between elections' versus 'seat changes after dissolution'? Carcharoth ( talk) 21:59, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
the conservatives have 317 seats plus the speaker so its reported as 318 in some outlets. however the wiki page states they have 318 seats not including the speaker which is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:23c4:7882:b600:6076:f32f:5300:7527 ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
This had been corrected but its now wrong again. It now states the conservatives have 317* seats. and then the *appendix states that this includes the speaker which would mean the conservatives have 316 seats but they in-fact have 317
Suggest including month (June) in the title of the page, as there will likely be another this year. 31.221.37.8 ( talk) 16:23, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This section has been blanked as a courtesy. |