Politics of the United Kingdom Template‑class | |||||||
|
Are the colours used here the actual colours used by the parties, or can they be altered slightly? The blue link for the Ulster Unionist party is difficult to see, and the one for the Conservative party almost impossible to see. Thryduulf 08:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Except for the three parties I added and Jack modified, I'm seeing black as the background colour for the logos. I'm using IE 6.0.2900.2180 on Windows XP Pro SP2. I assume the bgcolor="#66c" type attributes work in some browsers. It would be good to have a consistent look for all the parties. -- Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The colours are all working for me, as far as I can tell. I'm using Firefox 1.0 on Mandrake linux. The help about returns: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041109 Firefox/1.0 Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems that IE will not accept the three digit number attributes like bgcolor="#66c". It will only accept the six digit number attributes like bgcolor="#6666cc". Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 12 there now are the top 12 in terms of votes received in the 2001 General Election. In descending order of votes received the order would be
In terms of seats fought in 2001, the ranking for these is
The 'missing' parties are
I don't think we should add the missing the parties but I do think the order needs changing. The top three are OK but UKIP should be nearer the top. It would be good to group the four Northern Ireland parties together but that doesn't fit well in three columns. Would this be good?
I'll leave it for the moment, anyway, until we have the background colours sorted. -- Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Lab, Con, LibDem seems obvious, but the order of the others is less so. Perhaps we should just make either the whole table or all but the first three alphabetical (by party name, not abbreviation). Which would lead to one of these layouts
Con DUP Grn | Lab Con LbD Lab LbD PC | DUP Grn PC SNP SSP SF | SNP SSP SF SDL UUP UKI | SDL UUP UKI
or perhaps an arrangement by column would work, based on national parties, Scottish/Welsh parties and NI parties. Unfortunately either the greens or UKIP will need to go on the regional parties list.
Lab SNP DUP Con SSP UUP LbD PC SDL UKI Grn SF
Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I prefer not to do it by votes but by Seats Jack Cox 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldnt ordering alphabeticaly have less POV? Iain 11:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to seperate the Northern Ireland parties into a seperate template, since it will make the template smaller/allow more room for more parties, and since the title is misleading - Northern Ireland (in stricter terms) isn't in Britain (but is in the UK, obviously) -- Joolz 23:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This template looks great but I think it should be made smaller. Compared to other templates designed for use at the bottom of articles, this one is quite large in relation to the amount of information conveyed. Take, for example, Template:FA_Premier_League, which has a plethora of information and is only slightly bigger than the parties template.
The logos can be scaled down slightly and still be easily legible. The largest difference will be in the size of the cell which contains them. The most important reason to make the cells slightly smaller is that it will allow the inclusion of all political parties.
I hate the BNP. But it is still a politically significant party in the UK because it is by far the largest far-right vehicle, has several councillors in the UK and commands regular press interest. 800,000 people voted for them in the European Elections.
This template does not reflect the full extent of political activity in Britain. TreveX 15:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be more political parties. As distasteful as the BNP is, it got more votes in the most recent election than Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, the UUP, and the SDLP, and many, many more than the SSP. john k 19:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added European Parliament representation, but I'm unsure whether to include Veritas in that, since they are represented in the EP, but he wasn't elected as Veritas. So should it be UKIP (12) and no veritas or UKIP (11) and Veritas (1)? -- Joolz 23:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Just a note that I've reduced the LibDems' House of Commons representation from 62 to 61 following the death of Patsy Calton. Somebody remember to adjust the balance again after the by-election! -- Arwel 22:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Since Sinn Féin refuse to take their seats in the HoC (although they do make use of office facilities there), can they really be said to be "represented" there? Would "elected to the House of Commons" perhaps be better?
Whilst I agree that some of the more major parties without significant representation should be included, the inclusion of the Communist Party of Britain is somewhat POV IMO. This party stood only 6 candidates in the last general election, and polled so few votes that it does not feature on the Wikipedia scoreboard.
If it is to be included, then we would have to include many, many more parties as well. We need a standard that determines whether we should include a "minor" party on the template. -- New Progressive 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Though I can understand the 10,000 cutoff, I feel that if some parties are going to be represented in this way, then there are others who polled below that level who are at least as prominent. Both Mebyon Kernow and (dare I say it) the Monster Raving Loony Party, for example, have a long history in British politics and are widely recognised both within and outside the UK. I suppose it all comes down to "where do you draw the line?". Grutness... wha? 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not bothered at all about the addition of House of Lords info, just that the 3rd Viscount Esher has been dead since 1963, so his inclusion on the template may be mistaken. New Progressive 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
More of a note, especially to the user with the IP address 172.200.80.56 , that Dai Davies is not a Independent Labour MP, but an independent. Both Dai, and his predecessor Peter Law were fighting the Labour party with "old labour" policies, this doesn't automatically make them Independent Labour though. Both were listed as Independent, and should therefore, unless 172.200.80.56 or anyone else can find any evidence of a switch to using Independent Labour, stay as Independent Mikebloke 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I put a bit about this in response to someone else but nobody's replied, so I thought I'd give it its own heading to see if that brings any attention. Right now this template says that there are 196 Lords who are cross-benchers (which the corresponding Wikipedia page defines as meaning that they are "member[s] of the British House of Lords who [are] not aligned to any particular party", thirteen are "Non affiliated" (no link to any explanation) and one is "Independent" (with a redlink to "Lord Brett"). If anyone can explain the nuances of the distinctions among these three categories, this Yank is particular will appreciate it. ("Conservative Independent" and "Independent Labor" I take to mean individuals who have broken with the party leadership but still wish to indicate some sort of affiliation with the party's ideals?) -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Parties, especially at Lords level is generally irrelevant, so many choose to call themselves "Cross Bench". This is mostly due to the fact that usually they are MPs at Commons level that either lost or resigned due to age getting the better of them. The Lords also cover a lot less than the Commons, and is a house of okaying things more than anything. Political parties have less to fight over at that level. Non-affiliated are simply those who keep away from all parties, and Independent is pretty much the same thing at Lords level. Independent Labour/Conservative etc is different, at all levels of British politics, it means they don't take up the party whip, and tend not to be party members, or members with little party power, they follow the parties ideals but remain "Independent" so they aren't ruled by the Party. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There will be way too many to include every single group with representation at local level, but perhaps it might be worthwhile to list the numbers of the main groups. I'm currently ploughing through all the council websites making a list, but it won't be done any time soon. I'll put them up somewhere when I'm done if anyone is interested. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look like this template has been updated since Trimble left the UUP for the Conservatives on April 17. I'd make the change but I'm not sure what category he was included under in this table's breakdown before the switch -- was he a cross-bencher or unaffiliated or what? Or what he already taking the Tory whip in the Lords before he formally switched, since his larger agenda seems to be to revive the old Conservative-UUP alliance? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can a hide function be added here given its large size? Thunderwing 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There are now 196, not 197, Conservative MPs, as Derek Conway is no longer in the party ( Tory whip withdrawn from Conway). I will update the template accordingly. Rossenglish ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Co-Operative Party is little more than a faction within Labour now, but it is certainly not minor. Major political figures such as Ed Balls stand for it. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
MEP Wise was suspended from UKIP in 2007, [2] left IND/DEM in June 2008, [3] now sits as an Independent [4] [5] amongst the Non-Inscrits, [6] [7] [8] and no longer appears on the UKIP website as a UKIP MEP. [9] Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does UpDown remove references to the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) from the list of minor parties. It's perfectly legitimate to have it there, it's certainly "minor", but is an active little party producing a bimonthly magazine and many leaflets and pamphlets. It also makes interventions at many demonstrations and events. Why does UpDown wish to censor this list? If he/she removes references to the CPGB-ML, I will gladly add them again. It's nonsensical to regard this as "vandalism", a charge which I vehemently reject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should change "Minor parties" to "Other parties". Under this heading we should list all registered, currently active political parties that have now, or used to have (as notability is not temporary) at least one representative on a town, borough, district or county council, London Assembly, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland assembly, House of Commons, House of Lords, or European Parliament. I would not count having parish/community councillors as notable, as they are often uncontested and have little power. See List_of_political_parties_in_London, List of political parties in the United Kingdom by representation, List of political parties in the United Kingdom. BBC list of Sept 2008 of registered parties: [10].
The Cooperative Party has representation in Westminster, as part of Labour & Coop, so they should be listed there and not under "Other" or "Minor". Fences and windows ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
These parties could be listed under other, as all are active and have or had representative at town council level or above:
A distinction could be made between local parties (within one county or borough) and the others, as the local groups will not have national notability. I have undoubtedly missed some smaller parties that have or used to have representatives. Fences and windows ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to include the Communist Party of Scotland which was represented on Fife Council by William Clarke, who now sits as an independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of national political parties with a high public profile that do not and have not achieved electoral success warranted in the template? Examples might be:
Fences and windows ( talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thinking of another way round this - there is one thing that can be said for CPGB, Mebyon Kernow, and the Liberals/SDP (not Lib Dems) - their age. All of these parties have been around for two/three decades or even more. I think staying power has to be taken into account too. [edit to add - I notice that CPGB (ML) was only set up in 2004 - so scratch that! Quote -"It should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Too late, it looks as if I did!]-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely don't think that all of the local parties (particularly those who have never elected a councilor, but even some of those who elected a lone councilor) deserve to get their own page. With that said, an overall page on the movement of local parties/residents' associations does strike me as being in order (as many of these parties are somewhat similar in this regard). I think this would be a better way to deal with what are, for all intents and purposes, similar parties with similar identities and purposes in different located. Even those that have been elected tend to be similar to a lot of others.
Of course, there are exceptions. The Health Concern (which elected an MP) comes to mind. I'd also include Referendum (notable if just for the sheer number of votes it got in 1997); if a party breaks 1% nationally in an election (on the back of an envelope that gives about 300,000 votes), I would be inclined to include it. For reference, that vanity project did get more votes in its one election than UKIP ever got in a Westminster election.
In general, though, I do feel that we need a third "historical" category. The CPGB would qualify for this (they elected three MPs at different times and had a substantial share of the vote for some time, even if that time was over 50 years ago). The Liberals (historical), Social Democrats, Alliance, Whigs, and so forth would fall under this category. Tyrenon ( talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the age, registrations, electoral history, and success of the various parties and the best fit to the parties listed on the templates is restricting to parties:
The age criteria is necessary to include the CPB, SPGB, SWP and SDP, because their electoral history and history of representation is very poor, so they don't meet any thresholds for candidate or vote numbers. Other parties meeting this criterion are Mebyon Kernow, National Front, Progressive Unionists, Loony, and the Liberals. It does mean the addition of the WRP because they were founded before the SWP.
Everyone above seemed to agree that parties with a previous MP, MSP or assembly member should be included. Parties meeting this criterion are Progressive Unionist, Scottish Socialist, ICHC and Solidarity.
I think the final criterion does need to be spelled out in numbers but it can always be changed depending on circumstances. If we say 3, then the Lincolnshire Independents would qualify, so 4 is just enough to ensure a wide geographic spread without disenfranchising notable parties restricted to a single county like Mebyon Kernow. The limit on the share of the vote is necessary because there are parties competing in more than 4 constituencies (Pirate Party, Alliance for Green Socialism) that would otherwise qualify for inclusion, but these parties get very low numbers of votes. If you set the limit at the share of the vote, and leave out the threshold on the number of constituencies, then very localised parties like the Mansfield Independent Forum might qualify. So, by setting the threshold at both spread and share, the template can be limited to the current parties. DrKay ( talk) 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
JT should be included in this template. They are a brand new nationwide (non-party) party not formed through defection or reformation, which in its first election feilded 59 candidates and received nearly 80,000 votes in the 2009 European election coming 13th (by comparison Plaid Cymru who were 8th and got the last seat available, polled 126,000). They are contesting the Glasgow by-election and are likely to field MPs in every consituency in Great Britain in the next general election. I don't beleive they intend to stand in local elections, so I think it is pretty odd to exclude JT from this template, yet include parties soley on the basis that they have (only) ever been elected in local elections, or have only ever got their parliamentary seats through defection/reformation. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this template and other articles be altered to note that Eric Illsley lost the Labour whip some time ago and sits as a 'Labour independent'? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
... has left UKIP, but I'm unclear on what EuroParliament grouping he's in now, so I haven't changed the template yet. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have taken the Conservatives down to 317 and put Independents to 2 so as to reflect fact Anne Marie Morris has lost Conservative whip. Dunarc ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If I've understood the agreed inclusion criteria (which I possibly haven't), I think we should add Thurrock Independents, Aspire (political party) and People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets (but not OneNation). Bondegezou ( talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I propose the removal of Britain First from the template given that Britain First was deregistered as a political party with the electoral commision in November 2017 and has not re-registered and is therefore a political organisation and not a political party. What does everyone else think? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Given that Britain First has shown no indication of plans to re-register as a political party I would suggest now its probably time to remove them from the template. C. 22468 Talk to me 22:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Both the British Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party seem like yesterday's news. Do either of them warrant inclusion in the template as current parties? The BDP stopped being significant when Brons didn't stand for re-election as an MEP in 2014; their electoral results since have been derisory. The NLP got over 5000 votes in those 2014 Euro-elections, but have done little since. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
For the numbers of MEPs by political parties, this information has mostly been compiled looking at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/crosstable.html . However, there's evidence this may not be 100% reliable as a source.
When I was editing Template:UKEUparties on 14 January, I'm pretty certain it listed Jonathan Bullock as having been and Independent since December. Then on 16 January DrKay reverted an edit by Bondegezou, noting that it now listed him as being a member of the SDP - this seemed strange, as there was no other evidence that he had done this, not even from the SDP who heavily promoted it when Patrick Flynn joined. However, absent any source refuting this, it appeared reliable enough. Since today, however, his EP profile now says he has been a member of Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (Greece) since December. Once again, there is no other evidence of this being the case, and seems to make even less sense than him having joined the SDP, so I have elected to list him as an Independent instead. Furthermore, the two Conservatives who defected to the EPP are still listed on their profiles as being members of the Conservative Party, even tough they were expelled last year.
In summary, as this source has been used a lot following the mass exodus of UKIP MEPs: should we consider it a reliable source for UK Party membership; should we consider it a reliable source for EP groupings (Mike Hookem apparently moved from the EFDD to NI today? I made that edit, although I don't know if we should believe that or not); and should the UK party membership/EP grouping of any other MEPs be changed? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Should we show the new Brexit Party as having 2 MEP? Farage and Woolfe have both said they will stand for the party. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Now this might *become* a political party but is it a political party *today* as this template uses the term? Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the inclusion criteria should be if you have a council seat you should be mentioned, if you used to hold a seat then you go to the bottom category. Not even sure what the current inclusion criteria is, looks arbitrary at 1st glance? Abcmaxx ( talk) 08:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My two cents. I think we need to balance accuracy with notability. In Hartlepool, a newly elected councillor represents Veterans and Peoples and I'd be very surprised if that is not a red-link. I would be very surprised if Our West Lancashire exists as an article, too. We shouldn't be a repository for each and every localist/micro party in a Town Hall. Of course we must document the exact make-up of each council, but providing articles, and therefore links, for each and every party and micro-party might be overkill. It would certainly attract AfDs (and in some cases of minor parties, I would be the editor creating those AfDs!). As Bonde says, there are over 200 parties on the Register of Political Parties: links to all 200 would be far too much to manage, and would be a stepping stone of red-links and to-and-fro inclusion debates. Let's try to focus on notable parties than trying to include all of them. doktorb words deeds 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
4 Welsh AMs (Caroline Jones, Mandy Jones, Mark Reckless and David Rowlands) have joined the Brexit Party, but I've gotten lost as to what they were before. Reckless was in the Conservative group (but not in the party). Both Joneses left UKIP last year and were sitting as independents. Rowlands left UKIP yesterday(?). So, should the Welsh Assembly line now say:
Labour (29) Conservatives (11) Plaid Cymru (10) Brexit Party (4) Independent (3) UKIP (2) Liberal Democrats (1) ?? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just been checking which parties qualify under our criteria in the "Other parties" row. The template says, "Notability for the "Other national and regional parties" section can be established by:
"having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years;
"having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas;
"gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years."
We have also removed parties that are eligible under these criteria, but which are clearly now defunct, e.g. have been deregistered by the Electoral Commission. (Deregistration alone is not necessarily reason to remove a party if it still remains active.)
In case this is useful for other people, I share my notes here. We can then update this as necessary. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Parties currently in list:
One of our criteria for inclusion in this template is "gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years." Is this too easy to achieve? I note that Valerie Brown, the Burning Pink candidate, has come last in the 2021 London mayoral election with 0.2% of the vote... but that's just over 5,000 votes, so the party qualifies. I've added Burning Pink to the template. Other London mayoral candidates with tiny vote shares have also received at least 5,000 votes, so we have to include things like the London Real Party, the Count Binface Party and Let London Live that barely seem like functional political parties.
I'm not certain what to increase the number to. Looking at the London Mayoral election, 40k would work to exclude the vanity parties that seem to be nothing more than a name to have around a candidate. Maybe 50k is a rounder number? Bondegezou ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I like DrKay's suggestion of a rule based on gaining more than x% or more than y votes. For the x% rule, I suggest 5% is a more obvious cut-off, usually being what you need to recover a deposit. We don't want a 5% rule for small elections: 5% in an individual local council ward is too easy.
It seems reasonable to keep unchanged "having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years" and "having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas". Bondegezou ( talk) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
So, what about this...
I'd like to suggest tightening the second criteria to: having representation in at least two geographically separate first-tier local council areas. I've always supposed this to mean borough level or above, but it doesn't actually specify. I think including town or parish councils is going to lead to an unmanageable list of insignificant parties. DrKay ( talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
DrKay, what does this edit mean? What property does the party lack that's necessary for inclusion? — Bilorv ( talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
We were discussing this in 2022 (above), but discussion petered out. I remain of the same view that the current inclusion criteria are too broad. So, combining my and DrKay's suggestions from above, what about:
Yay or nay? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Politics of the United Kingdom Template‑class | |||||||
|
Are the colours used here the actual colours used by the parties, or can they be altered slightly? The blue link for the Ulster Unionist party is difficult to see, and the one for the Conservative party almost impossible to see. Thryduulf 08:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Except for the three parties I added and Jack modified, I'm seeing black as the background colour for the logos. I'm using IE 6.0.2900.2180 on Windows XP Pro SP2. I assume the bgcolor="#66c" type attributes work in some browsers. It would be good to have a consistent look for all the parties. -- Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The colours are all working for me, as far as I can tell. I'm using Firefox 1.0 on Mandrake linux. The help about returns: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041109 Firefox/1.0 Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems that IE will not accept the three digit number attributes like bgcolor="#66c". It will only accept the six digit number attributes like bgcolor="#6666cc". Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 12 there now are the top 12 in terms of votes received in the 2001 General Election. In descending order of votes received the order would be
In terms of seats fought in 2001, the ranking for these is
The 'missing' parties are
I don't think we should add the missing the parties but I do think the order needs changing. The top three are OK but UKIP should be nearer the top. It would be good to group the four Northern Ireland parties together but that doesn't fit well in three columns. Would this be good?
I'll leave it for the moment, anyway, until we have the background colours sorted. -- Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Lab, Con, LibDem seems obvious, but the order of the others is less so. Perhaps we should just make either the whole table or all but the first three alphabetical (by party name, not abbreviation). Which would lead to one of these layouts
Con DUP Grn | Lab Con LbD Lab LbD PC | DUP Grn PC SNP SSP SF | SNP SSP SF SDL UUP UKI | SDL UUP UKI
or perhaps an arrangement by column would work, based on national parties, Scottish/Welsh parties and NI parties. Unfortunately either the greens or UKIP will need to go on the regional parties list.
Lab SNP DUP Con SSP UUP LbD PC SDL UKI Grn SF
Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I prefer not to do it by votes but by Seats Jack Cox 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldnt ordering alphabeticaly have less POV? Iain 11:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to seperate the Northern Ireland parties into a seperate template, since it will make the template smaller/allow more room for more parties, and since the title is misleading - Northern Ireland (in stricter terms) isn't in Britain (but is in the UK, obviously) -- Joolz 23:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This template looks great but I think it should be made smaller. Compared to other templates designed for use at the bottom of articles, this one is quite large in relation to the amount of information conveyed. Take, for example, Template:FA_Premier_League, which has a plethora of information and is only slightly bigger than the parties template.
The logos can be scaled down slightly and still be easily legible. The largest difference will be in the size of the cell which contains them. The most important reason to make the cells slightly smaller is that it will allow the inclusion of all political parties.
I hate the BNP. But it is still a politically significant party in the UK because it is by far the largest far-right vehicle, has several councillors in the UK and commands regular press interest. 800,000 people voted for them in the European Elections.
This template does not reflect the full extent of political activity in Britain. TreveX 15:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be more political parties. As distasteful as the BNP is, it got more votes in the most recent election than Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, the UUP, and the SDLP, and many, many more than the SSP. john k 19:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I've added European Parliament representation, but I'm unsure whether to include Veritas in that, since they are represented in the EP, but he wasn't elected as Veritas. So should it be UKIP (12) and no veritas or UKIP (11) and Veritas (1)? -- Joolz 23:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
Just a note that I've reduced the LibDems' House of Commons representation from 62 to 61 following the death of Patsy Calton. Somebody remember to adjust the balance again after the by-election! -- Arwel 22:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Since Sinn Féin refuse to take their seats in the HoC (although they do make use of office facilities there), can they really be said to be "represented" there? Would "elected to the House of Commons" perhaps be better?
Whilst I agree that some of the more major parties without significant representation should be included, the inclusion of the Communist Party of Britain is somewhat POV IMO. This party stood only 6 candidates in the last general election, and polled so few votes that it does not feature on the Wikipedia scoreboard.
If it is to be included, then we would have to include many, many more parties as well. We need a standard that determines whether we should include a "minor" party on the template. -- New Progressive 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Though I can understand the 10,000 cutoff, I feel that if some parties are going to be represented in this way, then there are others who polled below that level who are at least as prominent. Both Mebyon Kernow and (dare I say it) the Monster Raving Loony Party, for example, have a long history in British politics and are widely recognised both within and outside the UK. I suppose it all comes down to "where do you draw the line?". Grutness... wha? 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not bothered at all about the addition of House of Lords info, just that the 3rd Viscount Esher has been dead since 1963, so his inclusion on the template may be mistaken. New Progressive 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
More of a note, especially to the user with the IP address 172.200.80.56 , that Dai Davies is not a Independent Labour MP, but an independent. Both Dai, and his predecessor Peter Law were fighting the Labour party with "old labour" policies, this doesn't automatically make them Independent Labour though. Both were listed as Independent, and should therefore, unless 172.200.80.56 or anyone else can find any evidence of a switch to using Independent Labour, stay as Independent Mikebloke 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I put a bit about this in response to someone else but nobody's replied, so I thought I'd give it its own heading to see if that brings any attention. Right now this template says that there are 196 Lords who are cross-benchers (which the corresponding Wikipedia page defines as meaning that they are "member[s] of the British House of Lords who [are] not aligned to any particular party", thirteen are "Non affiliated" (no link to any explanation) and one is "Independent" (with a redlink to "Lord Brett"). If anyone can explain the nuances of the distinctions among these three categories, this Yank is particular will appreciate it. ("Conservative Independent" and "Independent Labor" I take to mean individuals who have broken with the party leadership but still wish to indicate some sort of affiliation with the party's ideals?) -- Jfruh ( talk) 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Parties, especially at Lords level is generally irrelevant, so many choose to call themselves "Cross Bench". This is mostly due to the fact that usually they are MPs at Commons level that either lost or resigned due to age getting the better of them. The Lords also cover a lot less than the Commons, and is a house of okaying things more than anything. Political parties have less to fight over at that level. Non-affiliated are simply those who keep away from all parties, and Independent is pretty much the same thing at Lords level. Independent Labour/Conservative etc is different, at all levels of British politics, it means they don't take up the party whip, and tend not to be party members, or members with little party power, they follow the parties ideals but remain "Independent" so they aren't ruled by the Party. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
There will be way too many to include every single group with representation at local level, but perhaps it might be worthwhile to list the numbers of the main groups. I'm currently ploughing through all the council websites making a list, but it won't be done any time soon. I'll put them up somewhere when I'm done if anyone is interested. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't look like this template has been updated since Trimble left the UUP for the Conservatives on April 17. I'd make the change but I'm not sure what category he was included under in this table's breakdown before the switch -- was he a cross-bencher or unaffiliated or what? Or what he already taking the Tory whip in the Lords before he formally switched, since his larger agenda seems to be to revive the old Conservative-UUP alliance? -- Jfruh ( talk) 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Can a hide function be added here given its large size? Thunderwing 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
There are now 196, not 197, Conservative MPs, as Derek Conway is no longer in the party ( Tory whip withdrawn from Conway). I will update the template accordingly. Rossenglish ( talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Co-Operative Party is little more than a faction within Labour now, but it is certainly not minor. Major political figures such as Ed Balls stand for it. -- MacRusgail ( talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
MEP Wise was suspended from UKIP in 2007, [2] left IND/DEM in June 2008, [3] now sits as an Independent [4] [5] amongst the Non-Inscrits, [6] [7] [8] and no longer appears on the UKIP website as a UKIP MEP. [9] Regards, Anameofmyveryown ( talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Why does UpDown remove references to the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) from the list of minor parties. It's perfectly legitimate to have it there, it's certainly "minor", but is an active little party producing a bimonthly magazine and many leaflets and pamphlets. It also makes interventions at many demonstrations and events. Why does UpDown wish to censor this list? If he/she removes references to the CPGB-ML, I will gladly add them again. It's nonsensical to regard this as "vandalism", a charge which I vehemently reject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime ( talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that we should change "Minor parties" to "Other parties". Under this heading we should list all registered, currently active political parties that have now, or used to have (as notability is not temporary) at least one representative on a town, borough, district or county council, London Assembly, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland assembly, House of Commons, House of Lords, or European Parliament. I would not count having parish/community councillors as notable, as they are often uncontested and have little power. See List_of_political_parties_in_London, List of political parties in the United Kingdom by representation, List of political parties in the United Kingdom. BBC list of Sept 2008 of registered parties: [10].
The Cooperative Party has representation in Westminster, as part of Labour & Coop, so they should be listed there and not under "Other" or "Minor". Fences and windows ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
These parties could be listed under other, as all are active and have or had representative at town council level or above:
A distinction could be made between local parties (within one county or borough) and the others, as the local groups will not have national notability. I have undoubtedly missed some smaller parties that have or used to have representatives. Fences and windows ( talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget to include the Communist Party of Scotland which was represented on Fife Council by William Clarke, who now sits as an independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime ( talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Is the inclusion of national political parties with a high public profile that do not and have not achieved electoral success warranted in the template? Examples might be:
Fences and windows ( talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Thinking of another way round this - there is one thing that can be said for CPGB, Mebyon Kernow, and the Liberals/SDP (not Lib Dems) - their age. All of these parties have been around for two/three decades or even more. I think staying power has to be taken into account too. [edit to add - I notice that CPGB (ML) was only set up in 2004 - so scratch that! Quote -"It should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Too late, it looks as if I did!]-- MacRusgail ( talk) 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I sincerely don't think that all of the local parties (particularly those who have never elected a councilor, but even some of those who elected a lone councilor) deserve to get their own page. With that said, an overall page on the movement of local parties/residents' associations does strike me as being in order (as many of these parties are somewhat similar in this regard). I think this would be a better way to deal with what are, for all intents and purposes, similar parties with similar identities and purposes in different located. Even those that have been elected tend to be similar to a lot of others.
Of course, there are exceptions. The Health Concern (which elected an MP) comes to mind. I'd also include Referendum (notable if just for the sheer number of votes it got in 1997); if a party breaks 1% nationally in an election (on the back of an envelope that gives about 300,000 votes), I would be inclined to include it. For reference, that vanity project did get more votes in its one election than UKIP ever got in a Westminster election.
In general, though, I do feel that we need a third "historical" category. The CPGB would qualify for this (they elected three MPs at different times and had a substantial share of the vote for some time, even if that time was over 50 years ago). The Liberals (historical), Social Democrats, Alliance, Whigs, and so forth would fall under this category. Tyrenon ( talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I've looked at the age, registrations, electoral history, and success of the various parties and the best fit to the parties listed on the templates is restricting to parties:
The age criteria is necessary to include the CPB, SPGB, SWP and SDP, because their electoral history and history of representation is very poor, so they don't meet any thresholds for candidate or vote numbers. Other parties meeting this criterion are Mebyon Kernow, National Front, Progressive Unionists, Loony, and the Liberals. It does mean the addition of the WRP because they were founded before the SWP.
Everyone above seemed to agree that parties with a previous MP, MSP or assembly member should be included. Parties meeting this criterion are Progressive Unionist, Scottish Socialist, ICHC and Solidarity.
I think the final criterion does need to be spelled out in numbers but it can always be changed depending on circumstances. If we say 3, then the Lincolnshire Independents would qualify, so 4 is just enough to ensure a wide geographic spread without disenfranchising notable parties restricted to a single county like Mebyon Kernow. The limit on the share of the vote is necessary because there are parties competing in more than 4 constituencies (Pirate Party, Alliance for Green Socialism) that would otherwise qualify for inclusion, but these parties get very low numbers of votes. If you set the limit at the share of the vote, and leave out the threshold on the number of constituencies, then very localised parties like the Mansfield Independent Forum might qualify. So, by setting the threshold at both spread and share, the template can be limited to the current parties. DrKay ( talk) 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
JT should be included in this template. They are a brand new nationwide (non-party) party not formed through defection or reformation, which in its first election feilded 59 candidates and received nearly 80,000 votes in the 2009 European election coming 13th (by comparison Plaid Cymru who were 8th and got the last seat available, polled 126,000). They are contesting the Glasgow by-election and are likely to field MPs in every consituency in Great Britain in the next general election. I don't beleive they intend to stand in local elections, so I think it is pretty odd to exclude JT from this template, yet include parties soley on the basis that they have (only) ever been elected in local elections, or have only ever got their parliamentary seats through defection/reformation. MickMacNee ( talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't this template and other articles be altered to note that Eric Illsley lost the Labour whip some time ago and sits as a 'Labour independent'? Bondegezou ( talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
... has left UKIP, but I'm unclear on what EuroParliament grouping he's in now, so I haven't changed the template yet. Bondegezou ( talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I have taken the Conservatives down to 317 and put Independents to 2 so as to reflect fact Anne Marie Morris has lost Conservative whip. Dunarc ( talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
If I've understood the agreed inclusion criteria (which I possibly haven't), I think we should add Thurrock Independents, Aspire (political party) and People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets (but not OneNation). Bondegezou ( talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I propose the removal of Britain First from the template given that Britain First was deregistered as a political party with the electoral commision in November 2017 and has not re-registered and is therefore a political organisation and not a political party. What does everyone else think? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Given that Britain First has shown no indication of plans to re-register as a political party I would suggest now its probably time to remove them from the template. C. 22468 Talk to me 22:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Both the British Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party seem like yesterday's news. Do either of them warrant inclusion in the template as current parties? The BDP stopped being significant when Brons didn't stand for re-election as an MEP in 2014; their electoral results since have been derisory. The NLP got over 5000 votes in those 2014 Euro-elections, but have done little since. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
For the numbers of MEPs by political parties, this information has mostly been compiled looking at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/crosstable.html . However, there's evidence this may not be 100% reliable as a source.
When I was editing Template:UKEUparties on 14 January, I'm pretty certain it listed Jonathan Bullock as having been and Independent since December. Then on 16 January DrKay reverted an edit by Bondegezou, noting that it now listed him as being a member of the SDP - this seemed strange, as there was no other evidence that he had done this, not even from the SDP who heavily promoted it when Patrick Flynn joined. However, absent any source refuting this, it appeared reliable enough. Since today, however, his EP profile now says he has been a member of Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (Greece) since December. Once again, there is no other evidence of this being the case, and seems to make even less sense than him having joined the SDP, so I have elected to list him as an Independent instead. Furthermore, the two Conservatives who defected to the EPP are still listed on their profiles as being members of the Conservative Party, even tough they were expelled last year.
In summary, as this source has been used a lot following the mass exodus of UKIP MEPs: should we consider it a reliable source for UK Party membership; should we consider it a reliable source for EP groupings (Mike Hookem apparently moved from the EFDD to NI today? I made that edit, although I don't know if we should believe that or not); and should the UK party membership/EP grouping of any other MEPs be changed? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Should we show the new Brexit Party as having 2 MEP? Farage and Woolfe have both said they will stand for the party. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Now this might *become* a political party but is it a political party *today* as this template uses the term? Cameron Scott ( talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I believe the inclusion criteria should be if you have a council seat you should be mentioned, if you used to hold a seat then you go to the bottom category. Not even sure what the current inclusion criteria is, looks arbitrary at 1st glance? Abcmaxx ( talk) 08:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
My two cents. I think we need to balance accuracy with notability. In Hartlepool, a newly elected councillor represents Veterans and Peoples and I'd be very surprised if that is not a red-link. I would be very surprised if Our West Lancashire exists as an article, too. We shouldn't be a repository for each and every localist/micro party in a Town Hall. Of course we must document the exact make-up of each council, but providing articles, and therefore links, for each and every party and micro-party might be overkill. It would certainly attract AfDs (and in some cases of minor parties, I would be the editor creating those AfDs!). As Bonde says, there are over 200 parties on the Register of Political Parties: links to all 200 would be far too much to manage, and would be a stepping stone of red-links and to-and-fro inclusion debates. Let's try to focus on notable parties than trying to include all of them. doktorb words deeds 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
4 Welsh AMs (Caroline Jones, Mandy Jones, Mark Reckless and David Rowlands) have joined the Brexit Party, but I've gotten lost as to what they were before. Reckless was in the Conservative group (but not in the party). Both Joneses left UKIP last year and were sitting as independents. Rowlands left UKIP yesterday(?). So, should the Welsh Assembly line now say:
Labour (29) Conservatives (11) Plaid Cymru (10) Brexit Party (4) Independent (3) UKIP (2) Liberal Democrats (1) ?? Bondegezou ( talk) 16:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I've just been checking which parties qualify under our criteria in the "Other parties" row. The template says, "Notability for the "Other national and regional parties" section can be established by:
"having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years;
"having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas;
"gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years."
We have also removed parties that are eligible under these criteria, but which are clearly now defunct, e.g. have been deregistered by the Electoral Commission. (Deregistration alone is not necessarily reason to remove a party if it still remains active.)
In case this is useful for other people, I share my notes here. We can then update this as necessary. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Parties currently in list:
One of our criteria for inclusion in this template is "gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years." Is this too easy to achieve? I note that Valerie Brown, the Burning Pink candidate, has come last in the 2021 London mayoral election with 0.2% of the vote... but that's just over 5,000 votes, so the party qualifies. I've added Burning Pink to the template. Other London mayoral candidates with tiny vote shares have also received at least 5,000 votes, so we have to include things like the London Real Party, the Count Binface Party and Let London Live that barely seem like functional political parties.
I'm not certain what to increase the number to. Looking at the London Mayoral election, 40k would work to exclude the vanity parties that seem to be nothing more than a name to have around a candidate. Maybe 50k is a rounder number? Bondegezou ( talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I like DrKay's suggestion of a rule based on gaining more than x% or more than y votes. For the x% rule, I suggest 5% is a more obvious cut-off, usually being what you need to recover a deposit. We don't want a 5% rule for small elections: 5% in an individual local council ward is too easy.
It seems reasonable to keep unchanged "having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years" and "having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas". Bondegezou ( talk) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
So, what about this...
I'd like to suggest tightening the second criteria to: having representation in at least two geographically separate first-tier local council areas. I've always supposed this to mean borough level or above, but it doesn't actually specify. I think including town or parish councils is going to lead to an unmanageable list of insignificant parties. DrKay ( talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
DrKay, what does this edit mean? What property does the party lack that's necessary for inclusion? — Bilorv ( talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
We were discussing this in 2022 (above), but discussion petered out. I remain of the same view that the current inclusion criteria are too broad. So, combining my and DrKay's suggestions from above, what about:
Yay or nay? Bondegezou ( talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)