![]() | 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 |
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Under the exit poll it gives a majority of 86, which is the difference between the number of all opposition parties seats added together, against the Conservative parties total of 368. Why is a majority shown this way instead of how many more seats the Conservatives have over half the number of seats in the parliament? Which would then show their majority as 43. This is in the exit poll but also common for all displays of the size of the majority. Perhaps it should be made clear in the article that majority size is the difference between government and the rest rather than the number of over 325. Billgates2 ( talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This should be something people can find as soon as they click on the page. Ganpati23 ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the documents referring to Russian interference? Stinks of corrupt billionaires' influence, which is an interesting move for a website that's begging for donations. Dyaluk08 ( talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Given the importance of the election, I think a turnout of 67.3% is pretty low. I miss an analysis of that. Wammes Waggel ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we adequately describing the situation around Neale Hanvey? He was selected as the SNP candidate and listed on the ballot paper as SNP, but they suspended him from the party during the campaign. He says in this tweet that he is heading to Westminster to sit as an independent MP. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
After looking at the infobox for this election, I've proposed some changes at Template talk:Infobox election#Row order for legislative elections. The party sections currently seem to me to prioritise less important (sometimes barely relevant) information and bury the most important details. TSP ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Someone is questioning the need for citations in the Lead of this article. Should there be any in it? Please give reason for either YES or NO GUtt01 ( talk) 20:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019 United Kingdom general election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have mistakenly stated that the swing in this general election was 1.2%. This represents this % increase in the Conservative's share of the vote, whereas the swing is calculated by adding the Conservative vote share gain (+1.2%) to the loss in Labour's share of the vote (-7.9%) and dividing by 2. The result is a 3.35% swing to the Conservatives, overall. It's worth looking at this both regionally and nationally. 2407:7000:902E:EE67:A008:601B:3AC1:C00F ( talk) 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The swing in the infobox is a swing taking into account all parties - aka a percentage change. Perhaps the name should be changed from Swing to something else, but the 1.2% figure should remain, as this is the statistic it should represent. Only having a CON-LAB swing in the infobox doesn't really seem sensible, as it ignores all other parties' change in voteshare. Happy to discuss to try and resolve the issue eeveeman ( talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The infobox implies that Johnson is "to be appointed Prime Minister", but this is false. He was and remains PM until he resigns or is dismissed. There is no re-appointment. 216.8.131.5 ( talk) 13:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
new article created, 2019 in United Kingdom politics and government. I know it's pretty late for this year, but this might be useful for items in 2020.-- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Question - Although this article covers a political event, a national election, should the opening line begin in the past tense?
"The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on..."
Doesn't the Lead of an article start in the present tense? (i.e. "The City of London is a borough within Central London...") GUtt01 ( talk) 18:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Simon Jenkins in The Guardian has just published an interesting statistic. Despite changing from a minority to a majority government, the Conservative's share of the vote in 2019 was only 1.2% higher than in 2017, representing an increase of 304,000 votes: The Guardian - Simon Jenkins - The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December 2019: His 43.6% of the vote was ahead of Theresa May’s only by 1.2 percentage points ... But the Lib Dem vote soared by 1.3m or 4.1 percentage points, while Corbyn’s fell by 2.6m. Johnson’s rose by only 304,000. ← ZScarpia 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the results section and in related articles we do not have an independents section like last time. Given NI had an independent MP last time the change in MP figures don't add up. I think we need to add an independents section. Do people agree, does anyone know a good source for the number of independent candidates/votes etc? Jopal22 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
just thought you might be interested to know that this article jumped to 500,000 hits recently. nice work everyone!! below is a link to the graph of page views. I included some other similar 2019-related pages just for comparison, but they got much less traffic. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know the page show the definitive results, so where are the total of blank and invalid votes? Surely the UK electoral commission would have released such a number, right? We can't know the exact turnout until we got it.-- Aréat ( talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just calling attention from editors here that there's a new academic report on media bias in the UK media extending until election day. The findings are broadly in line with the more limited study already mentioned in the entry, but I know we need an update, as well: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-5/ Rafe87 ( talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
"General Election 2019: results and analysis", a House of Commons library briefing. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is to change the description in the infobox to Prime Minister after election.
For years irregardless of whether the post-election prime minister was the incumbent or not, we've been using Appointed Prime Minister in the infobox. Recently (in this article) that's been challenged (note: A related dispute occurred at
2019 Canadian federal election concerning incumbent pms, which has since been resolved) as some want the description changed to Prime Minister after election.
So which should it be?
GoodDay (
talk)
14:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A) - Appointed Prime Minister
or
B) - Prime Minister after election
If option 'B' is chosen, I sincerely hope it will be adopted for all the UK general election articles, including those with 'new' pms after the election. GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Kahastok:, we can use a note in cases like the Jan 1924 election article. See how it's handled at 1985 Ontario general election & 2017 British Columbia general election articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for opening this RfC, GoodDay. I would go with Option B, at least where the PM before the election remains in office after election. The reason is that in that case, the PM is not appointed after the election. The PM remains in office and no subsequent appointment is required. There is no set term for the PM. Once appointed, they remain PM until they resign, die, or are dismissed by the monarch. A parliamentary election does not end their tenure of offfice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A general election in the UK does not "appoint" a prime minister, it only appoints members of the House of Commons. The post of PM is in the gift of the monarch, who following an election summons the outgoing PM and invites them to form a government. If that person is unable (or unwilling) to form a government, the monarch will then invite them to suggest a person who could, if appointed PM, be able to form a goverment; and this is usually (but not necessarily) the leader of the party having the most MPs. Consider the 2010 general election: this was held on 6 May; and although it was known early on 7 May that the Conservatives had the most MPs, David Cameron was not automatically PM: Gordon Brown remained in the office of Prime Minister until 11 May; he was unable to form a government, so on 11 May he resigned and suggested Cameron, who took office later that day. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It's obvious that there's a consensus to change to Prime Minister after election. GoodDay ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Results have been implemented at all the GB/UK general election articles, by @ Impru20: and myself :) GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Two recent edits have disagreed over whether the Conservative victory should be described as a 'landslide'. As there is no prescriptive definition of landslide, my concern is that describing this victory as such is too editorial. I think that it should not be described as a landslide unless it is commonly referred to as such in the long term.
If it is to be described as a landslide, then it should be added to the Landslide victory page. I am interested in other editors views on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perokema ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It seem we still have no data of the blank and invalid votes on the page. Does the UK not count those?-- Aréat ( talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently there is only the Tories, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems. But the Brexit Party picked up a significant share of the vote in many seats and were thus quite important to the resulting seat distribution, even if they got no seats themselves (due to spoiler effect etc), so I think it might be good to include them purely for the sake of showing their popular vote share. — ajf ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ρουθραμιώτης and Nub Cake: There's been some to-and-fro about the presence of a much-expanded infobox on this page, featuring the fortunes of 9 parties and their leaders. (See this revision) I've got to say I like the "massively complex" infobox, as if offers a panoramic view of the UK political landscape, including the fortunes of the minority parties, one of which once held the poltical balance -- but I can appreciate it that others don't share this view, and prefer the older 4-party one. (See here). Let's also take this to talk before this becomes a major issue. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Nub Cake: I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus". The bigger infobox is clearly the result of a good faith edit by another editor, and unless I'm missing an earlier discussion, consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change. Yes, it's big, but it's also informative, and I think overall a positive change. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus" [...] consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change.WP:CONSENSUS means that there was already a process of discussion after similar changes were already attempted in the past. That there are people that would like for a massive infobox to be shown is not a new issue, but current consensus already addressed this with the involvement and agreement of many editors. Obviously, there is little else to say against the current 4-party infobox short of a new, different consensus being achieved, but unilateral edits, no matter how good faithed they are, are not enough to overturn consensus. Impru20 talk 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit late in providing input, but I was the first to revert our Greek friend, and have to agree with Impru20 on the DUP, who were the ones to support the May ministry following the June 2017 election. As to the smaller parties...for infobox purposes, as an example, the average reader is less likely to care about the GPEW's Berry and Bartley (the party co-leaders) than Caroline Lucas, the party's sole MP. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a bit unclear on what can and can't go in all infoboxes, never mind just ones for elections. I think that if a party gets over 2% of the popular vote, then they should be included. This would mean all of the following being included: the Conseravtive Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party of England and Wales and the Brexit Party. Dylan109 ( talk) 11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to say this, as it's a descriptor used as an inset in many GE results maps, but I can't find anywhere else better.
"South Wessex, Brighton and Hove" seems to be a description that's overlong and arbitrary at best, and factually wrong at worst.
Perhaps I could suggest "southern Hampshire and Sussex"? It's more succinct and is more obviously correct. It does ignore the Isle of Wight, but the map is not there for the IoW, which is one of the few constituencies clearly discernible on the map of the whole country. Knole Jonathan ( talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be meaningful to list the results of each constituency (electoral district) here or (maybe even more suitable) in the respective election articles for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, at least the percentage of votes for the leading candidate, perhaps also for two or three trailing ones. I believe that is more relevant than, for example, county averages. The same would apply for futre elections. Meerwind7 ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The documents Corbyn paraded around in the election debates were indeed acquired by 'Russian actors.' Section added. [1] This interference manifested itself through a hacked document pertaining to the NHS that Jeremy Corbyn used to damage the Tory Party by showcasing at election debates. [2] Reaper7 ( talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'm starting this thread as I know without it you'll continue to edit war. With your latest revision you said the revision was unjustified. This isn't true, as I provided a justification in my edit summary. Please read that: the citations do not directly support your claim that, as "it became clear that the Russia report would be published, the Conservative government then, made a selective disclosure of a hacked document". This wording implies the only reason that it was released was because they had no other choice. This is a case of WP:SYNTH. If one of the citations states this explicitly, please post it here in case I have missed it. — Czello 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't address my concern. No one is disputing that the government has acknowledged there was interference, I'm disputing the wording and phrasing around it being because of Chris Grayling failing to get his post. Your version makes this implication. — Czello 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'll start the talk page discussion for you to try to discourage you from edit warring. On the subject of the party winning with a minority vote: every single UK election ends up like this. Mentioning it here is WP:UNDUE. You'll notice that other articles where a party won a majority don't have this disclaimer: the reason being is that by saying "despite them getting a minority of the vote share" you're importing a PoV statement, probably in an attempt to make a point. — Czello 18:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I agree, and I've raised it with AN/I for this reason — Czello 13:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
stunningand that they
romped to victory, disclaiming your own, earlier statement that "the Conservatives having a massive level of public support is not the case here". Impru20 talk 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: Before you address Impru20's point, please re-read very carefully what TSP said above: "Can you suggest any reliable sources which make the observation that the failure of the winning party to achieve a majority was a notable feature of the 2019 general election?" — Czello 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The article has been protected at template editor access for three days due to heavy edit warring. Please discuss not revert back and forth. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Possibility of finding other sources than the Guardian and Sky News, who were hardly impartial in this election>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.206.150 ( talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest instead of Sturgeon being leader in the infobox it should be Blackford as he is leader in the House of Commons. ( Airline7375 ( talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC))
I don’t see why Nicola should be in the infobox, Blackford is the Westminster leader of the SNP and this article is about a Westminster election Ciaran.london ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Next election in the United Kingdom. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Next election in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Next Untied Kingdom general election. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Next Untied Kingdom general election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is questionable as to whether an 80-seat majority constitutes a "landslide". What even is the definition of a landslide anyway? The majority for the Tories was similar in terms of seats to the 2005 general election, but that is almost never referred to as a "landslide". This seems to me to be a rather loaded term designed to make the election result seem more comprhensive than it actually was. I propose removing the label, unless someone in support wishes to provide an appropriate justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.21.189 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for the reply. Could you elaborate a little on what sources you are using as the basis of this claim as it seems incongruous that the similar majority (in seat terms) of 2005 is not referred to as a landslide. "Pretty comprehensive" would be a fair description, but "landslide" refers to an utterly overwhelming victory such as 1997 or 2001, which I do not believe it can be said that the 2019 election was.
The issue is that the article is presenting a matter of opinion as a matter of fact. This "landslide" does not match the scale of other elections considered as landslides (ie 1983, 1997). At the very least it should be changed to an additional sentence stating that some commentators branded it as a landslide victory, if any mention of the word landslide is to be on this page.
How are the seating charts of the House of Commons at the bottom of the infobox made? If anyone knows please add to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
[ edit to this article] was reverted on the basis of "weasel words" and I was told to take this to talk. I fundamentally do not agree that there are any "weasel words" here - and if there are, somehow, this is factual information that should be represented in the article, and which is backed up with sources. I would be interested to hear what "weasel words" are included here and any suggestion for how this information could be included in the article while also not being immediately reverted. Foonblace ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
If your only issue is with “multiple” - which appears to be your only substantive issue - why not propose alternative wording rather than obliterating all mention of these documented, evidenced events? It feels like you’ve latched onto that because it’s the only concrete thing you can offer for your far less well-supported opinion that you just don’t like what it says. Foonblace ( talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
And as David says - the only person here with any objection appears to be you - and you are using your sole objection to assert that there is a lack of consensus, which is tautological. Of course there’ll never be consensus when you don’t seem to offer any way forward other than non-specific “not like this”. You’ve not made a single workable, concrete suggestion throughout this entire discussion but have instead just referred to Wikipedia policies that just don’t back you up at all as if that’s something actionable. Foonblace ( talk) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added two more sources - the BBC and the Independent covered it as well as the Guardian. All three seem to have written their stories independently (not just copied each other), so the incidents were significant enough to attract independent coverage in multiple national RSes, which should help demonstrate that the incident is due under WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS coverage - David Gerard ( talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I would be against this being added as it just seems selecting one instance of a wider issue which creates an imbalance. If you want to add a section on abuse during the campaign it could justified if there was an effort for a more general overview which has balance. Adding a specific instance will just result in partisan adding of specific incidents by others. BBC and NYT had more rounded articles on this at the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/world/europe/britain-election-women-threats.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50852381. Other articles that might relevant https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/boris-johnson-barnard-castle-cancelled-17391018 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1216528/election-2019-bristol-polling-station-voter-intimidation-police-avon-somerset. The NPCC also released specific advice this election to candidates https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/security-guidance-issued-to-help-candidates-stay-safe-on-the-campaign-trail. Hopefully this is some of what you want to balance the wiki edits so there is less concern from other editors. Jopal22 ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Results section, the total number of votes given for parties appears twice, and they differ; how can this be? They are, for the Summary and Full Results sub-sections respectively:
Tory 13,966,565 Labour 10,269,076 LibDem 3,696,423
Tory 13,966,454 Labour 10,269,051 LibDem 3,696,419
Yes, they are small differences, and perhaps one shouldn't worry, but if neither is correct, they could indicate a problem with the sources; and they can't both be correct, can they? Nick Barnett ( talk) 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
We should really only be using the official government CSV file. There was a major error with the number votes recieved by the green party. Within the Government CSV file there is an error with the Chorley constituency in the other column, with the incorrect number of votes, but other than that I have confirmed that the data within the CSV is in fact correct. If someone could update the massive table it would appreciated, as it is currently incorrect. Thetukars ( talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The results if the election with just teh main main parties should be in the first few sentences. To get the results is difficult from this article, as they do not jump out at you. Wisdom-inc ( talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The Infobox describes vote change as swing, which is incorrect. Read the article on swing if you don't understand. The problem seems to be in the template, so I won't meddle with it, but this needs to be fixed everywhere the template is used (including all UK general elections, by the look of it). Utilisateur19911 ( talk) 12:40, 27 January 2023 (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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 11:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Under the exit poll it gives a majority of 86, which is the difference between the number of all opposition parties seats added together, against the Conservative parties total of 368. Why is a majority shown this way instead of how many more seats the Conservatives have over half the number of seats in the parliament? Which would then show their majority as 43. This is in the exit poll but also common for all displays of the size of the majority. Perhaps it should be made clear in the article that majority size is the difference between government and the rest rather than the number of over 325. Billgates2 ( talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
This should be something people can find as soon as they click on the page. Ganpati23 ( talk) 19:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of the documents referring to Russian interference? Stinks of corrupt billionaires' influence, which is an interesting move for a website that's begging for donations. Dyaluk08 ( talk) 11:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Given the importance of the election, I think a turnout of 67.3% is pretty low. I miss an analysis of that. Wammes Waggel ( talk) 15:37, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Are we adequately describing the situation around Neale Hanvey? He was selected as the SNP candidate and listed on the ballot paper as SNP, but they suspended him from the party during the campaign. He says in this tweet that he is heading to Westminster to sit as an independent MP. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
After looking at the infobox for this election, I've proposed some changes at Template talk:Infobox election#Row order for legislative elections. The party sections currently seem to me to prioritise less important (sometimes barely relevant) information and bury the most important details. TSP ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Someone is questioning the need for citations in the Lead of this article. Should there be any in it? Please give reason for either YES or NO GUtt01 ( talk) 20:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2019 United Kingdom general election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
You have mistakenly stated that the swing in this general election was 1.2%. This represents this % increase in the Conservative's share of the vote, whereas the swing is calculated by adding the Conservative vote share gain (+1.2%) to the loss in Labour's share of the vote (-7.9%) and dividing by 2. The result is a 3.35% swing to the Conservatives, overall. It's worth looking at this both regionally and nationally. 2407:7000:902E:EE67:A008:601B:3AC1:C00F ( talk) 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The swing in the infobox is a swing taking into account all parties - aka a percentage change. Perhaps the name should be changed from Swing to something else, but the 1.2% figure should remain, as this is the statistic it should represent. Only having a CON-LAB swing in the infobox doesn't really seem sensible, as it ignores all other parties' change in voteshare. Happy to discuss to try and resolve the issue eeveeman ( talk) 13:22, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
The infobox implies that Johnson is "to be appointed Prime Minister", but this is false. He was and remains PM until he resigns or is dismissed. There is no re-appointment. 216.8.131.5 ( talk) 13:44, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
new article created, 2019 in United Kingdom politics and government. I know it's pretty late for this year, but this might be useful for items in 2020.-- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Question - Although this article covers a political event, a national election, should the opening line begin in the past tense?
"The 2019 United Kingdom general election was held on..."
Doesn't the Lead of an article start in the present tense? (i.e. "The City of London is a borough within Central London...") GUtt01 ( talk) 18:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Simon Jenkins in The Guardian has just published an interesting statistic. Despite changing from a minority to a majority government, the Conservative's share of the vote in 2019 was only 1.2% higher than in 2017, representing an increase of 304,000 votes: The Guardian - Simon Jenkins - The Lib Dems helped the Tories to victory again. Now they should disband, 16 December 2019: His 43.6% of the vote was ahead of Theresa May’s only by 1.2 percentage points ... But the Lib Dem vote soared by 1.3m or 4.1 percentage points, while Corbyn’s fell by 2.6m. Johnson’s rose by only 304,000. ← ZScarpia 19:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
In the results section and in related articles we do not have an independents section like last time. Given NI had an independent MP last time the change in MP figures don't add up. I think we need to add an independents section. Do people agree, does anyone know a good source for the number of independent candidates/votes etc? Jopal22 ( talk) 22:00, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
just thought you might be interested to know that this article jumped to 500,000 hits recently. nice work everyone!! below is a link to the graph of page views. I included some other similar 2019-related pages just for comparison, but they got much less traffic. thanks! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 16:27, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
As far as I know the page show the definitive results, so where are the total of blank and invalid votes? Surely the UK electoral commission would have released such a number, right? We can't know the exact turnout until we got it.-- Aréat ( talk) 16:35, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm just calling attention from editors here that there's a new academic report on media bias in the UK media extending until election day. The findings are broadly in line with the more limited study already mentioned in the entry, but I know we need an update, as well: https://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/general-election/report-5/ Rafe87 ( talk) 22:19, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
"General Election 2019: results and analysis", a House of Commons library briefing. Bondegezou ( talk) 16:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is to change the description in the infobox to Prime Minister after election.
For years irregardless of whether the post-election prime minister was the incumbent or not, we've been using Appointed Prime Minister in the infobox. Recently (in this article) that's been challenged (note: A related dispute occurred at
2019 Canadian federal election concerning incumbent pms, which has since been resolved) as some want the description changed to Prime Minister after election.
So which should it be?
GoodDay (
talk)
14:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A) - Appointed Prime Minister
or
B) - Prime Minister after election
If option 'B' is chosen, I sincerely hope it will be adopted for all the UK general election articles, including those with 'new' pms after the election. GoodDay ( talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Kahastok:, we can use a note in cases like the Jan 1924 election article. See how it's handled at 1985 Ontario general election & 2017 British Columbia general election articles. GoodDay ( talk) 16:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for opening this RfC, GoodDay. I would go with Option B, at least where the PM before the election remains in office after election. The reason is that in that case, the PM is not appointed after the election. The PM remains in office and no subsequent appointment is required. There is no set term for the PM. Once appointed, they remain PM until they resign, die, or are dismissed by the monarch. A parliamentary election does not end their tenure of offfice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 15:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
A general election in the UK does not "appoint" a prime minister, it only appoints members of the House of Commons. The post of PM is in the gift of the monarch, who following an election summons the outgoing PM and invites them to form a government. If that person is unable (or unwilling) to form a government, the monarch will then invite them to suggest a person who could, if appointed PM, be able to form a goverment; and this is usually (but not necessarily) the leader of the party having the most MPs. Consider the 2010 general election: this was held on 6 May; and although it was known early on 7 May that the Conservatives had the most MPs, David Cameron was not automatically PM: Gordon Brown remained in the office of Prime Minister until 11 May; he was unable to form a government, so on 11 May he resigned and suggested Cameron, who took office later that day. -- Redrose64 🌹 ( talk) 22:30, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
It's obvious that there's a consensus to change to Prime Minister after election. GoodDay ( talk) 17:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Results have been implemented at all the GB/UK general election articles, by @ Impru20: and myself :) GoodDay ( talk) 16:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Two recent edits have disagreed over whether the Conservative victory should be described as a 'landslide'. As there is no prescriptive definition of landslide, my concern is that describing this victory as such is too editorial. I think that it should not be described as a landslide unless it is commonly referred to as such in the long term.
If it is to be described as a landslide, then it should be added to the Landslide victory page. I am interested in other editors views on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perokema ( talk • contribs) 10:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It seem we still have no data of the blank and invalid votes on the page. Does the UK not count those?-- Aréat ( talk) 22:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Currently there is only the Tories, Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems. But the Brexit Party picked up a significant share of the vote in many seats and were thus quite important to the resulting seat distribution, even if they got no seats themselves (due to spoiler effect etc), so I think it might be good to include them purely for the sake of showing their popular vote share. — ajf ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
@ Ρουθραμιώτης and Nub Cake: There's been some to-and-fro about the presence of a much-expanded infobox on this page, featuring the fortunes of 9 parties and their leaders. (See this revision) I've got to say I like the "massively complex" infobox, as if offers a panoramic view of the UK political landscape, including the fortunes of the minority parties, one of which once held the poltical balance -- but I can appreciate it that others don't share this view, and prefer the older 4-party one. (See here). Let's also take this to talk before this becomes a major issue. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:11, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@ Nub Cake: I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus". The bigger infobox is clearly the result of a good faith edit by another editor, and unless I'm missing an earlier discussion, consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change. Yes, it's big, but it's also informative, and I think overall a positive change. -- The Anome ( talk) 12:14, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I'd say you also need to make your case for removing that change, rather than just relying on claiming "consensus" [...] consensus is not the same thing as a prohibition of further change.WP:CONSENSUS means that there was already a process of discussion after similar changes were already attempted in the past. That there are people that would like for a massive infobox to be shown is not a new issue, but current consensus already addressed this with the involvement and agreement of many editors. Obviously, there is little else to say against the current 4-party infobox short of a new, different consensus being achieved, but unilateral edits, no matter how good faithed they are, are not enough to overturn consensus. Impru20 talk 12:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I am a bit late in providing input, but I was the first to revert our Greek friend, and have to agree with Impru20 on the DUP, who were the ones to support the May ministry following the June 2017 election. As to the smaller parties...for infobox purposes, as an example, the average reader is less likely to care about the GPEW's Berry and Bartley (the party co-leaders) than Caroline Lucas, the party's sole MP. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 22:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it's a bit unclear on what can and can't go in all infoboxes, never mind just ones for elections. I think that if a party gets over 2% of the popular vote, then they should be included. This would mean all of the following being included: the Conseravtive Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Green Party of England and Wales and the Brexit Party. Dylan109 ( talk) 11:57, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether this is the right place to say this, as it's a descriptor used as an inset in many GE results maps, but I can't find anywhere else better.
"South Wessex, Brighton and Hove" seems to be a description that's overlong and arbitrary at best, and factually wrong at worst.
Perhaps I could suggest "southern Hampshire and Sussex"? It's more succinct and is more obviously correct. It does ignore the Isle of Wight, but the map is not there for the IoW, which is one of the few constituencies clearly discernible on the map of the whole country. Knole Jonathan ( talk) 12:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
It would be meaningful to list the results of each constituency (electoral district) here or (maybe even more suitable) in the respective election articles for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, at least the percentage of votes for the leading candidate, perhaps also for two or three trailing ones. I believe that is more relevant than, for example, county averages. The same would apply for futre elections. Meerwind7 ( talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The documents Corbyn paraded around in the election debates were indeed acquired by 'Russian actors.' Section added. [1] This interference manifested itself through a hacked document pertaining to the NHS that Jeremy Corbyn used to damage the Tory Party by showcasing at election debates. [2] Reaper7 ( talk) 14:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'm starting this thread as I know without it you'll continue to edit war. With your latest revision you said the revision was unjustified. This isn't true, as I provided a justification in my edit summary. Please read that: the citations do not directly support your claim that, as "it became clear that the Russia report would be published, the Conservative government then, made a selective disclosure of a hacked document". This wording implies the only reason that it was released was because they had no other choice. This is a case of WP:SYNTH. If one of the citations states this explicitly, please post it here in case I have missed it. — Czello 19:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
That doesn't address my concern. No one is disputing that the government has acknowledged there was interference, I'm disputing the wording and phrasing around it being because of Chris Grayling failing to get his post. Your version makes this implication. — Czello 14:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: I'll start the talk page discussion for you to try to discourage you from edit warring. On the subject of the party winning with a minority vote: every single UK election ends up like this. Mentioning it here is WP:UNDUE. You'll notice that other articles where a party won a majority don't have this disclaimer: the reason being is that by saying "despite them getting a minority of the vote share" you're importing a PoV statement, probably in an attempt to make a point. — Czello 18:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Impru20: I agree, and I've raised it with AN/I for this reason — Czello 13:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
stunningand that they
romped to victory, disclaiming your own, earlier statement that "the Conservatives having a massive level of public support is not the case here". Impru20 talk 14:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
( edit conflict)@ Friend-of-the-planet-99: Before you address Impru20's point, please re-read very carefully what TSP said above: "Can you suggest any reliable sources which make the observation that the failure of the winning party to achieve a majority was a notable feature of the 2019 general election?" — Czello 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The article has been protected at template editor access for three days due to heavy edit warring. Please discuss not revert back and forth. Timrollpickering ( talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Possibility of finding other sources than the Guardian and Sky News, who were hardly impartial in this election>? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.206.150 ( talk) 22:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Can I suggest instead of Sturgeon being leader in the infobox it should be Blackford as he is leader in the House of Commons. ( Airline7375 ( talk) 11:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC))
I don’t see why Nicola should be in the infobox, Blackford is the Westminster leader of the SNP and this article is about a Westminster election Ciaran.london ( talk) 23:42, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Next election in the United Kingdom. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Next election in the United Kingdom until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (
𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠)
20:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Next Untied Kingdom general election. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 5#Next Untied Kingdom general election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Seventyfiveyears (
talk)
16:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
It is questionable as to whether an 80-seat majority constitutes a "landslide". What even is the definition of a landslide anyway? The majority for the Tories was similar in terms of seats to the 2005 general election, but that is almost never referred to as a "landslide". This seems to me to be a rather loaded term designed to make the election result seem more comprhensive than it actually was. I propose removing the label, unless someone in support wishes to provide an appropriate justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.21.189 ( talk • contribs)
Thank you for the reply. Could you elaborate a little on what sources you are using as the basis of this claim as it seems incongruous that the similar majority (in seat terms) of 2005 is not referred to as a landslide. "Pretty comprehensive" would be a fair description, but "landslide" refers to an utterly overwhelming victory such as 1997 or 2001, which I do not believe it can be said that the 2019 election was.
The issue is that the article is presenting a matter of opinion as a matter of fact. This "landslide" does not match the scale of other elections considered as landslides (ie 1983, 1997). At the very least it should be changed to an additional sentence stating that some commentators branded it as a landslide victory, if any mention of the word landslide is to be on this page.
How are the seating charts of the House of Commons at the bottom of the infobox made? If anyone knows please add to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
[ edit to this article] was reverted on the basis of "weasel words" and I was told to take this to talk. I fundamentally do not agree that there are any "weasel words" here - and if there are, somehow, this is factual information that should be represented in the article, and which is backed up with sources. I would be interested to hear what "weasel words" are included here and any suggestion for how this information could be included in the article while also not being immediately reverted. Foonblace ( talk) 16:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
If your only issue is with “multiple” - which appears to be your only substantive issue - why not propose alternative wording rather than obliterating all mention of these documented, evidenced events? It feels like you’ve latched onto that because it’s the only concrete thing you can offer for your far less well-supported opinion that you just don’t like what it says. Foonblace ( talk) 14:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
And as David says - the only person here with any objection appears to be you - and you are using your sole objection to assert that there is a lack of consensus, which is tautological. Of course there’ll never be consensus when you don’t seem to offer any way forward other than non-specific “not like this”. You’ve not made a single workable, concrete suggestion throughout this entire discussion but have instead just referred to Wikipedia policies that just don’t back you up at all as if that’s something actionable. Foonblace ( talk) 14:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I have added two more sources - the BBC and the Independent covered it as well as the Guardian. All three seem to have written their stories independently (not just copied each other), so the incidents were significant enough to attract independent coverage in multiple national RSes, which should help demonstrate that the incident is due under WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS coverage - David Gerard ( talk) 14:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I would be against this being added as it just seems selecting one instance of a wider issue which creates an imbalance. If you want to add a section on abuse during the campaign it could justified if there was an effort for a more general overview which has balance. Adding a specific instance will just result in partisan adding of specific incidents by others. BBC and NYT had more rounded articles on this at the time: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/world/europe/britain-election-women-threats.html https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-50852381. Other articles that might relevant https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/boris-johnson-barnard-castle-cancelled-17391018 https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1216528/election-2019-bristol-polling-station-voter-intimidation-police-avon-somerset. The NPCC also released specific advice this election to candidates https://news.npcc.police.uk/releases/security-guidance-issued-to-help-candidates-stay-safe-on-the-campaign-trail. Hopefully this is some of what you want to balance the wiki edits so there is less concern from other editors. Jopal22 ( talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
In the Results section, the total number of votes given for parties appears twice, and they differ; how can this be? They are, for the Summary and Full Results sub-sections respectively:
Tory 13,966,565 Labour 10,269,076 LibDem 3,696,423
Tory 13,966,454 Labour 10,269,051 LibDem 3,696,419
Yes, they are small differences, and perhaps one shouldn't worry, but if neither is correct, they could indicate a problem with the sources; and they can't both be correct, can they? Nick Barnett ( talk) 14:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
We should really only be using the official government CSV file. There was a major error with the number votes recieved by the green party. Within the Government CSV file there is an error with the Chorley constituency in the other column, with the incorrect number of votes, but other than that I have confirmed that the data within the CSV is in fact correct. If someone could update the massive table it would appreciated, as it is currently incorrect. Thetukars ( talk) 13:02, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The results if the election with just teh main main parties should be in the first few sentences. To get the results is difficult from this article, as they do not jump out at you. Wisdom-inc ( talk) 21:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The Infobox describes vote change as swing, which is incorrect. Read the article on swing if you don't understand. The problem seems to be in the template, so I won't meddle with it, but this needs to be fixed everywhere the template is used (including all UK general elections, by the look of it). Utilisateur19911 ( talk) 12:40, 27 January 2023 (UTC)