Talk:2005 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

message: Just wanted a quick sanity check of one of the facts on this page. The article currently says "Mr Blair spent the morning of the 4th attending Vespers at Westminster Cathedral", but I was under the impression that Vespers was an early evening service and that the Vespers service he went to (which was in remembrance of Pope John Paul II) was at 16:30 on the 4th April. Does anyone else have any evidence one way or the other?
:This BBC News article says The [vespers] service began about 1630 BST so it looks like you're correct. Thryduulf 16:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vespers

message: About the reference to the "Michael-Howard-as-Hypnotist" Labour camapaign poster. I think that the complaint was that the advert set him up to look like a "Fagin-like" figure, rather than Shylock - perhaps it's the wording of the article makes a comparison seem rather explicit when it was seen merely as an implication by the media/tories?
I certainly don't mean this in a pro-Labour sense, just wondering about the context, is all. It might seem that, to anybody reading who has not been following the election that Labour compared Howard directly to Shylock.
Any thoughts on a modification to the pharasing of this?
:Have had a go, you're welcome to change it if you can do better. Dbiv 23:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dirty Tricks? Michael Howard compared to Shylock? 

message: what is the dissolution of parliament?  Does the current parliament have to be completely dismantled be for the election?  What does that entail?  Why do they do that?  We don't dissolve Congress over here in the US before elections.  I think this article should explain what that means, it sounds quite drastic.
:The dissolution of Parliament means that it dissolves in the same way as a meeting dissolves when it finishes and the participants go home. Obviously the physical buildings stay there. The US situation is different in that the election of a new Congress takes place during the course of its predecessor. Dbiv 18:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Parliament needs to be dissolved because it's not fixed-term, unlike the US Congress. Slac speak up! 21:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissolution

message: Between User:ChrisUK and User:Talrias we have knocked together a related page Pre-election day events of the United Kingdom general election, 2005 to put all the stuff in related to the major campaign events.  I suggest that as the campaign progresses, the pre-election day page is kept up to date with the details and a summary of the most important things is kept under the section Campaign Trail on this page.  That way things can be re-arranged cleanly later after the election is held and it is in the past. Thoughts? ChrisUK 22:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea! I can't take any credit for it since it was all you. I just dusted up behind you. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:44, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campaign Trail and pre-election day events 

message: Does anyone know if party manifestos are public domain?  I want to put them on Wikisource for reference from here and Wikinews. I notice the BBC and Guardian (and surely others) are hosting copies. Joe D (t) 23:58, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I very much doubt the parties are worried about people hosting them without permission. The more eyeballs the better, I imagine. It's probably still copyrighted (public domain means anyone can edit it - they probably don't want that). Talrias (t | e | c) 00:04, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know a party manifesto is by definition out of copyright. They are routinely reprinted in the Times Guide to the House of Commons and F. W. S. Craig published a collection of all party manifestos since 1900 (Iain Dale has done the same more recently) without giving any copyright warning. Talrias is right to say that the parties would like more people to host their manifestos. Dbiv 08:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright status of manifestos

message: Most of the colours for the parties in the two tables are just showing up as black at the moment. 172.200.103.170 01:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were experiencing an Internet Explorer bug in terms of demanding rgb sextets instead of triplets.  I've fixed them. -The Tom 03:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables again 

message: How to deal with Brian Sedgemore's defection from Labour to the LDs? Change "number of MPs at Dissolution" to "number of only-just-recently-former-MPs three weeks after Dissolution"? Ignore it? James F. (talk) 22:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Either (a) ignore it, or (b) put it in a footnote. Can't alter the figures as dissolution has already happened. Dbiv 22:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Keeping the figures at dissolution is much better as these are verifiable. I've already got confused with how many people have been switching parties recently. I wouldn't even bother with a footnote - the detail on his page is ample. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defection of Brian Sedgemore