Talk:Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency)

message: Some regard the following statement as POV and superlative:
Although more politically mixed, these too have drifted to the Tories since the implementation of former Westminster Council leader Shirley Porter's Building Stable Communities programme of the late 1980s.  Even at the 1997 general election, Labour fell short by several thousand votes and the seat must now be considered safely Conservative in all circumstances.
Why?  Buidling Stable Communities is a matter of public record as are the political intentions which lay behind it; the dramatic political changes it helped foster in wards like Bayswater and Churchill are clearly visible in changes in party share of the vote from 1986-1994 (http://www.election.demon.co.uk/wcc/wcc.html) a period when they Conservative share of the vote in almost all London Boroughs went into steep decline.  And, short of, the complete annihilation of the British Conservative Party or a split in the English right a la the Canadian Tory meltdown, there is no prospect of CLW being lost by the Tories.
I can, of course, litter the article with references but I'd rather use a bit of common sense and keep the flow of the article and leave the reference war to university students with too much time on their hands.
*I edited these statements, as the History clearly shows. I'm afraid the statement
::"Although more politically mixed, these too have drifted to the Tories since the implementation of former Westminster Council leader Shirley Porter's Building Stable Communities programme of the late 1980s"
needs source(s). How do you know this - where is the verifiable, secondary source to demonstrate that that these disparate facts are linked in any way? Correlation, as I am sure you are aware, is not causation.
*The statement 
::"Even at the 1997 general election, Labour fell short by several thousand votes and the seat must now be considered safely Conservative in all circumstances" 
was replaced with
::"Even at the 1997 general election, a Labour landslide, the constituency returned a Conservative MP by a majority of several thousand; it can be considered a Conservative safe seat."
which removed the incorrect assertion of superlative certainty ("must", "in all circumstances") with an indication of the balance of probability. I stand by it being a statement of a more neutral point of view. Sliggy 16:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentary on the seat

message: There is no article on the 1974-97 constituency, City of London and Westminster South.  Having read the very detailed account of the constituency here, I'm inclined to suspect that the 1974 boundary changes probably didn't involve more than a few wards being shuffled off to Westminster North.
I'm therefore disinclined to split out the 1974-97 constituency to a separate article, so for now I have just created City of London and Westminster South (UK Parliament constituency) to redirect here.  (I would have no objection if someone else wanted to create a separate article … it's just that from what I can see, it'd be a lot of work for not much gain, so I won't be the one who does it.)
I have also edited the MPs list to show the name change. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)  • (contribs) 20:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950-1997 

message: One of the predecessor constituencies, City of London (UK Parliament constituency), used a special voting mechanism for Livery Companies.  Is that still true for the modern district?  Also, does the MP sit near the Speaker of Parliament? -- Beland (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The ancient custom of the two MPs for the City of London sitting on the Treasury Bench (ie Government front bench) during Budget statements appears to have been long abandoned; no doubt there is a source identifying exactly when but probably before 1950. The business vote for Members of Parliament was severely pruned in 1945 and abandoned entirely in 1950; I think it had already been severed from the arrangements for the Livery to vote in Common Council and Aldermanic elections for the Corporation of London.  Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business voters 

message: I think it is worth mentioning (and properly sourced to mention) the abandoned proposals to divide the Cities of London and Westminster in Parliamentary elections. It is significant as the only attempt to do so, and also because it proved so unpopular among those consulted. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandoned proposals for severing the two Cities 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cities of London and Westminster (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_2015.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_2010.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_2005ob.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_1997.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_1992ob.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_1987.txt
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/electdata_1983.txt
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified