Talk:1931 United Kingdom general election

message: The modern practice is to ignore changes in both by-elections and sitting MPs alleigances and show the difference from the previous general election (or notional results where there were boundary changes). However the old practice was to regard an MP changing party during the Parliament and holding the seat in their new colours as a "hold". (Complicating things further some MPs, including all the Independent Liberals elected here, changed party after the dissolution and The Times guide seems to regard those as gains.)
Currently the table seems to have a mix - National Labour is shown in the new format with 13 gains, whilst the Liberals and Liberal Nationals are shown in the old format with both having sitting MPs. I think we sould go with the modern convention, although I can see a case for using the old one, but this tables and other elections need a single format to be workable. Timrollpickering 21:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gains/Losses

message: The image :Image:JohnSimon.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:JohnSimon.JPG

message: As I note above, it's not 100% definite that Herbert Samuel was formally the Liberal leader, but putting Lloyd George in the box for the 33 Samuelite Liberals is dubious when Lloyd George was in a different group by election day. Samuel was the de facto leader of the Liberals at the time. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal leader 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:1931 UK Election Map.png Nominated for Deletion

message: Is the turnout recorded?Keith-264 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout? 

message: This was NOT the last election in which a party won a majority of votes, under universal suffrage. The 1935 election was.(Coachtripfan (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction 

message: The actual entry nowhere explains why Ramsey MacDonald was retained as prime minister, rather than Conservatives, with their overwhelming choice, insisting on Stanley Baldwin.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCD8:AB80:912F:E9CA:AFF2:A2D5 (talk) 03:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Conservatives were in a position to insist upon Baldwin becoming Prime Minister before the election, but decided to support an all-party government led by Macdonald. The election did not change their dominance or their thinking, therefore there is no particular need to explain this in an article about the election.Graemp (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Why was MacDonald retained?

message: Byzantium Purple has repeatedly changed the order of parties in the infobox, initially without comment, but now stating "Seats matter more than votes. Give proof, please".  Clearly, this is inconsistent with other articles in this series and would need wider discussion, but this might be a place to get that started. Warofdreams talk 02:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I agree. The key point of the election is the outcome which means the number of seats won, regardless of the vote share (which is especially distorted in an election with so many unopposed returns). It's especially awkward in elections where the largest votes and seats went to different parties to be putting the winner further down the line. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a debate about statistical information and I'm not sure it should be. The data is contained within the table lower down the article in a far more comprehensive manner. Therefore the actual details of this statistical information should not be so important to an infobox that's role is not just statistical. The infobox in my view needs to summarise the most important participants and the role that they played in the election. The most important individual in this election was clearly and unquestionably Ramsay Macdonald and he should be listed first in my view. I accept that defining 'most important' can be subjective and that people will feel comfortable falling back on numbers but when those numbers let them down as they do here, those who rely on numbers get into these sorts of arguments. For the record, if I was doing this, I would list them in this sort of order; Macdonald, Baldwin, Henderson, Samuel, Lloyd George, Simon, Maxton, Mosley. Also for the record, in anticipation of nobody agreeing with me, the most important numbers are seats. Graemp (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes/seats

message: According to the relevant article Empire Free Trade Crusade (or probably under the name United Empire Party) won a single seat in this election, as from what I understand Ernst Taylor won the seat under that banner in the 1931 election and he did not defect to the Conservative Party until after the Tory victory. I think the information boxes saying which parties won should be changed as though it shows Liverpool Protestant, it does not show the United Empire Party and I do not understand the omission. Threadnecromancer (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake?

message: Just wondering if the national government should be in the infobox instead of having the individual party's that mayd it up as the description in the article is of a national government victory and the liberal sdp alliance is shown as one party in the infobox in the 80s 2.28.220.166 (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike the Alliance parties in the 1980s (excluding 3 instances), in 1931, parties that made up the national government opposed each other at constituency level and campaigned on different platforms. I think it is beneficial to the reader to present them separately in the infobox as is done with 1918. Graemp (talk) 10:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Graemp. Also it would make it impossible to, say, follow the Tories' results by scrolling through the infoboxes. Dionysodorus (talk) 15:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  good thanks for the exsplonation2.28.220.166 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

text: whoud it be ok to mention the total size of the national government in the lead in stead of the size of the conservative as the government had 556 seats a a mojoratey of 500 the largest landslide in uk history this is stated on the national government page but not in the lead of this article 2.26.205.161 (talk) 09:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the national government be in the infobox 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Kingdom general election, 1931. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20031204210418/http://www.labour-party.org.uk:80/manifestos/1931/1931-labour-manifesto.shtml to http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1931/1931-labour-manifesto.shtml
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) 22:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the risk of this becoming an edit war - Ramsay McDonald nominally led 20 or so National Labour candidates into the election, 13 of whom were elected. Nevertheless historical evidence shows that he was the chief figure in the election; his Coalition (National Govt) won the greatest landslide in British history, he remained PM, and after the election three National Labour men formed part of his Government (two of them peers), while five more (three MPs) became junior ministers. After the 1935 result, we have Harold Nicolson's diaries mocking the idea he was the only National Labour backbencher while the rest of their MPs were either ministers or had Government jobs. They were clearly a significant force - the cream of the Labour defections - but beside all this, can we really deny McDonald to the infobox for an election where he won a 400 seat majority? Should it be recorded as an "Alliance" which has certainly happened in infoboxes for "foreign elections", i.e. elections outside the UK? Uncantabrigian (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ramsay McDonald in the infobox