Template talk:Political parties in the United Kingdom

message: 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)
replies: text: I just fixed them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!  --Cavrdg 16:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: 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
*  1 Lab 
*  2 Con 
*  3 LDem 
*  4 SNP 
*  5 UKIP 
*  6 UUP 
*  7 PC 
*  8 DUP 
*  9 SF 
* 10 SDLP 
* 11 Green 
* 12 SSP 
In terms of seats fought in 2001, the ranking for these is 
*  1 Con 
*  2 Lab 
*  3 LDem 
*  4 UKIP 
*  5 Green 
*  8 SSP 
*  9 SNP 
* 10 PC 
* 13 SF 
* 14 SDLP 
* 15 UUP 
* 17 DUP 
The 'missing' parties are
*  6 Socialist Labour Party 
*  7 Socialist Alliance
* 11 Prolife Alliance 
* 12 British National Party
* 16 Monster Raving Loony Party
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?
* Lab Con LbD
* UKI SNP PC
* Grn UUP DUP
* SSP SDL SF
I'll leave it for the moment, anyway, until we have the background colours sorted.
--Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parties and Order 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree with Joolz here. Northern Ireland is a distinct entity in terms of party politics and isn't even in Britain, as Joolz has pointed out. TreveX 15:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I third that or alternatively you could change the title of the template to Political parties in the United Kingdom which would avoid the problem.--Vintagekits 11:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Ireland

message: 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)
thread_title: Smaller with more parties

message: 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)
replies: text: We should do it as the current makeup. If there was a defection in the House of Commons, then there is a change; the same should be true for the EU parliament. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, however, I've discovered a secondary problem. What about MEPs who have had the whip withdrawn? Ahsley Mote was a UKIP member but had his whip withdrawn and is listed on the EU's website as 'independent'  -- Joolz 12:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't see how this is a problem. The numbers should be a current, accurate representation of the makeup of the various political parties. If someone isn't a member of a party's representation in the legislature any more, they shouldn't be included in the numbers. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's a problem because they're still a member of UKIP but they've had the whip withdrawn. -- Joolz 14:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  His own website says he is an independent member. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Robert Kilroy-Silk is no longer a member of Veritas, so they are no longer represented in the European Parliament. I've made the adjustment to the template. TomPhil 17:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: European Parliament representation

message: 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)
thread_title: Mortality

message: 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?
::I concur. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Represented in the House of Commons" 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree - I've changed the minor parties sections to include all political parties with no elected representatives (not including councillors), but who gained more than 10,000 votes at the last general election. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Minor parties should be removed entirely as this is to do with representation in the respective chambers, of which they have none Rob.derosa 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The template is titled "British political parties", the title makes no mention of representation in some assembly/parliament. New Progressive 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Minor" Parties

message: 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)
replies: text: Also, what's the distinction between a "Cross-Bencher" and an "Independent" in the Lords? --Jfruh (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Lords

message: 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)
thread_title: Dai Davies is not Independent Labour

message: 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)
replies: text: I guess my main question is, why do we need separate entries for non-affiliated and cross-benchers? I've also reposted this question on Talk:House of Lords. --Jfruh (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lords affiliations: cross-benchers, independents, etc. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about including Councillor count? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  David Trimble 

message: Can a hide function be added here given its large size? Thunderwing 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hide function

message: 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)
thread_title:  Conservative MPs - Derek Conway 

message: MEP Wise was suspended from UKIP in 2007, left IND/DEM in June 2008, now sits as an Independent amongst the Non-Inscrits, and no longer appears on the UKIP website as a UKIP MEP. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tom Wise 

message: 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)
thread_title:  CPGB-ML 

message: These parties could be listed under other, as all are active and have or had representative at town council level or above:
====National or regional====
*Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
*British National Front (is the group now in existence the same as held council seats in the 70s?)
*Christian Peoples Alliance
*Communist Party of Scotland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties to include under the proposed criteria

message: *Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
*British National Front (is the group now in existence the same as held council seats in the 70s?)
*Christian Peoples Alliance
*Communist Party of Scotland  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime (talk • contribs) 08:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: National or regional

message: *Better Boston Group
*Blaenau Gwent People's Voice Group
*Boston Bypass Independents
*Community (London Borough of Hounslow)
*Democratic Labour Party (UK)
*East Dunbartonshire Independent Alliance
*Havering Residents Association
*Hounslow Independent Alliance
*Idle Toad
*Llais Gwynedd
*Merton Park Residents
*Middlewich First
*Morecambe Bay Independents
*Norbiton Independent, Kingston
*People Against Bureaucracy Group, Cheltenham
*Residents Associations of Epsom and Ewell
*Saint Helier Independent, Sutton
*Save Chase Farm, Enfield
*Save Huddersfield NHS
*Socialist People's Party (Furness)
*South Tyneside Progressives
*Suffolk Together
*Thames Ditton / Weston Green Residents' Association
*West Area Independent Group, Hounslow
*West Ewell and Ruxley Residents' Association
*Whitefoot Independent, Lewisham
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)
thread_title: Local

message: 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:
*Socialist Labour Party
*Communist Party of Britain
Fences and windows (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: National parties without a history of representation

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jury Team 

message: 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)
thread_title: Current numbers

message: ... 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)
thread_title: Steven Woolfe

message: 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)
replies: text: Also I am assuming the other independent is Lady Hermon, but she uses the description Independent Unionist, which is used as a label for the NI Assembly figures here so should this be changed to 1 Independent and 1 Independent Unionist? Dunarc (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Commons Numbers July 2017 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmmm. Possibly I haven't understood the inclusion criteria. (Perhaps they could be re-stated?) But these three are all groups with 6+ councillors on local councils, all groups consisting of individuals elected under other labels (UKIP for the first, Tower Hamlets First for the latter two). Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't meet criterion 1 because they are only represented at a local level nor criterion 2 because their councillors are restricted to a single geographical area (and council). They haven't received any votes because the councillors were elected for other parties so I don't think they meet criterion 3 either. There are several of these locally isolated independent groups but the criteria were designed to exclude them and focus on those parties that operate more widely. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Parties to add?

message: 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)
replies: text: De-registered parties are usually removed. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to make the case for keeping them on the template.  Given how they've been in the news recently, they seem to still be active and notable.  An organisation can be a political party without registering, e.g. because they support a separately registered coalition, their candidates stand as independents, or they prioritise other activities above standing in elections. Warofdreams talk 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sympathetic to 's view, although our template inclusion rules are very based around election results or elected representatives obtained through defection. I'd leave it for now because it's a current issue. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

text: Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

text: . DrKay (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Britain First 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've cut them for those reasons. I think the inclusion criteria should be considered as examples of the sort of parties that can or could be included rather than an instruction that every party that meets the criteria should be included (there are some local parties for example that are still excluded even though on a strict reading they meet one of the criteria). DrKay (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  When should we drop... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for that analysis. I think we should use it as a source, but recognise it is fallible. Where possible, we should triangulate information to more than one source. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using EP webpage as a source 

message: 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)
replies: text: + Nathan Gill now. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 7 MEPs are now listed by the European Parliament as in the Brexit Party (although not including Woolfe, who's still listed as an independent). 5 of these were independents, 1 was Thurrock Independents, 1 Libertarian. I think I've changed the template correctly now to cover that, but others please check! I've thus also removed the Libertarian Party and Thurrock Independents from the template entirely as they do not qualify to be listed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brexit Party 

message: 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)
replies: text: That's why we have a footnote on the matter. That would seem to be sufficient to solve the conundrum. Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Independent Group 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Welsh Assembly 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other parties: qualification watch 

message: , what does this edit mean? What property does the party lack that's necessary for inclusion? — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom#Inclusion criteria and the talk page sections above this one. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking The Initiative Party 

message: 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 's suggestions from above, what about:
*having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or Assembly Members within the last 5 years;
*having representation in at least two geographically separate first-tier local council areas;
*gaining more than 50,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years;
*gaining more than 5% of the vote in any mayoral, PCC, Parliamentary or Assembly election in the last 5 years
Yay or nay? Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tightening inclusion criteria 2023 

message: I wasn't aware of this template until seeing a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom#UK political parties template getting too big: Does anyone actually update the numbers of MPs? It doesn't appear to have been amended in the last couple of days to add newly-elected Chris Webb (politician). PamD 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating 

message: After a May 2024 change, 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 25,000 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.)
I share my notes here. I encourage others to update this too. Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other parties: qualification watch from 2024