Talk:List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–2010)

message: Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, another one! Droping like flys arn't they
The Conservative Party haven't won a seat at a by-election (as opposed to succesfully defending one) in over 20 years!   I wonder when the last time actually was? Morwen - Talk 16:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Merton, Mitcham and Morden in 1982. Though this was the result of the sitting MP moving from the Labour party to the SDP and putting himself up for re-election in his new colours - and splitting the vote. Timrollpickering 08:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Was Beattie actually in the Irish Labour Party at this stage? Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency) lists him as independent Labour but I was under the impression he was from the Northern Ireland Labour Party (not the same thing as the British party) at this point and only later moved to the Irish one when in the late 1940s the NILP finally decided it agreed with the Union. Timrollpickering 19:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing I can find on the net makes it clear.  I got the information from a fairly reliable book but will check the full(er) results at the city library to try to clarify this. Warofdreams 10:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a suspicion that sources which list him as "independent Labour" derive from UK election results and mean "Labour Party (GB) minded but not an official candidate" rather than any clarity as to actual party. Not that that makes it clear just what he was. Timrollpickering 11:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked the rather more completed results, which locate him in the NILP.  Thanks for pointing out my error!  Warofdreams 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Belfast West 1943

message: The outgoing MP is listed as Alfred Ravenscroft Kennedy but my recollection is that it was William Allen Jowitt, who was given a job in the second Labour government (Attorney General) and opted to put himself up for re-election in his new party colours. Does anyone have a source list for sure? Timrollpickering 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Preston 1929

message: *dead: Patsy Calton, Robin Cook
Some of the incumbents and victors seem to be in the wrong place on the chart. For instance, the Anti-Waste League is listed as incumbent when they were actually the victors in an upset. Homey 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2005-

message: How complete is this listing for some of the earlier Parliaments?
In the 1935-45 Parliament, I can think of a few missing to start with: Lewes (1936) and Bodmin (1940, may have been uncontested, can't recall). New Progressive 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to make it more complete, there is a list of all by-elections (and their results) dating back to 1945 on this website. New Progressive 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a complete list is desired then it's not difficult to find the information - F. W. S. Craig's 'Chronology of British Parliamentary Byelections' is the book. However I think the article would probably have to be split by timeframe if it included every byelection since 1918. David | Talk 12:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Completeness

message: I've made various changes to the table, including using reverse chronological order and experimentally merging the last three Parliaments.  Does anyone have any opinions on the the advantages or disadvantages of these? Warofdreams talk 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it now looks weired as chronologically one has to go in both directions. Also we've lost the note on the 1918-1922 Parliament about the confusion of the Coalition and this should stay. Timrollpickering 09:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy to go through and change the whole article into reverse chronological order, if there are no objections to this.  Reversing the order has the advantages that the most recent by-elections are listed first.  It should also permit a more natural division of the article should it grow further and need to be split over more than one page.  I'm not concerned either way about the note; I was unsure it was needed, but if there is a desire to keep it, that's fine with me. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to table

message: Just to float an idea before mass changes - the Scottish Unionist Party was a nominally separate entity between 1912 and 1965 - so should we list all Conservatives in Scotland in the period as "Scottish Unionist" and use colour #5555FF rather than #3333CC? We do the same for the Ulster Unionists. Timrollpickering 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My view is no, because the Unionist Party was part of the National Union at this time and there was no difference in policy. It's analagous with not having a different colour for the Labour/Co-operatives. The Ulster Unionists are substantially different because they had the Stormont Parliament and a different policy. David | Talk 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scottish Unionist Party 1912-1965 

message: RodCrosby As this page becomes more comprehensive and detailed, I'll say in advance (having calculated these figures 20 years ago) that I think it's notable that 23 MPs died on active service during the Second World War, and 22 MPs died on active service during the First World War. Remarkable figures given the average age of MPs at that time (how many were even eligible for national service?), and that 8-10% casualties is considered by modern military commanders as unacceptable. By the way, how many MPs are on active service in Iraq?
*There is a difference in that national service isn't in place in Iraq.  You could equally ask how many MPs died in the Second Boer War (I believe the answer is none). Warofdreams talk 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many MPs signed up even though some were in their 60s. The most remarkable was Hitchin Conservative MP Sir Arnold Wilson, who spent most of the 1930s saying what a reasonable chap Hitler was, but eventually realised he had been duped and rejoined the RAF. He was shot down and killed in 1940. Austin Hopkinson, the Independent MP for Mossley whose article I wrote the other week, rejoined the Navy. One of those killed in the Second World War was Private P.M. Munro of the Palace of Westminster Home Guard. I think there may have been some sitting MPs killed in the South African War in 1900 - there is a list in Fred Craig's Chronology of British Parliamentary byelections. David | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now checked Craig and no MPs died in South Africa, although three were killed in the Crimea. Now I remember, there is a complete list of MPs who served in the Second World War in Quintin Hogg's book "The Left was never Right", pages 11-13. David | Talk 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Although it doesn't seem to be complete because it doesn't list Hopkinson) David | Talk 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WWI & WW2 

message: We need to get a consistent position on this. In addition to Mid Ulster 1956, there were a lot of Independents who took seats during the Second World War in defiance of the truce between the parties and then joined a party (usually Labour) in Parliament, sometimes holding the seat in their new colours. We also have a few cases of MPs being elected by renegade local associations who weren't happy with the official candidate and again becoming full party men by the general election. Plus we have the problem of multiple labels meaning the same thing (e.g. Lipson in Cheltenham 1937 - elected as an Independent Conservative, holding his seat as an National Independent supporting a basically Conservtaive government).
I'm inclined towards the view that everything is a gain unless the seat is held by the same basic label - so the independents are not retaining their seats. But does anyone have a better rule to follow? Timrollpickering 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say if the same member is re-elected, that's the key point for whether a byelection change is 'retained'. As for gains, yes, I agree. I would still count Liverpool Scotland in 1929 as a gain although in real terms it was nothing of the sort. David | Talk 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent victors who hold seats for parties 

message: 128K long at last edit. Growing like topsy. Time to split it up and "fork off"? I would think the best splits would be byelections up to 1918, 1918-1945, and 1945-date. David | Talk 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for a split? 

message: Anyone got a good box sized summary and link for by-elections caused by appointment to Ministerial office? Timrollpickering 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Appointed as Minister for Administrative Affairs" (insert name of office)? Warofdreams talk 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly, though I think a link explaining the law of the day would be useful as well. Timrollpickering 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As this would affect a great deal of by-elections were we to have complete lists, perhaps the law should be explained in the introduction? Warofdreams talk 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appointments to ministerial office 

message: Just noticed that the electors of Edinburgh East endured 7 parliamentary elections in 10 years. 1945(ge), 1945(be), 1947(be), 1950(ge), 1951(ge), 1954(be), 1955(ge). RodCrosby
Ormskirk another - 5 in 5 years. 1950(ge), 1951(be), 1951(ge), 1953(be), 1955(ge)
:Try Middlesex - five in two years, six in four: 1766 (be), Mar 1768 (ge), Dec 1768 (be), Feb 1769 (be), Mar 1769 (be), Apr 1769 (be). 
:The voters of North Down had similarly frequent votes: 1921 (be), Feb 1922 (be), Apr 1922 (be).  They then became part of Down, which voted in 1922 (ge), 1923 (ge), 1924 (ge).  Warofdreams talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edinburgh East, some record? 

message: Putting in footnotes for all cases where a different party from the one defending/holding/gaining the seat at the next general election is getting chaotic - look especially at List of UK by-elections (1931 - 1950). How about expanding the infomation in the "Retained?" box to include things like "No - won by Labour" for all cases where another party wins?
Also for both completeness and tidyness I'd include a "Yes" in all cases when the same party defends, holds and retains the seat - otherwise no box appears at all. Timrollpickering 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another party winning at the general election 

message: Shouldn't the colours that are used to signify a gain be standardised? Currently, we've got different schemes for Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff, as regards LibDem and SNP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, in fact I came to this discussion page to ask why the LibDems are given yellow while the SNP are given a light orange. Though both parties use yellow as their primary colour, LibDems tend to campaign with a light orange while the SNP always use yellow. I think it would be easier understood at glance to invert the colours on this page so that SNP are given yellow and LibDems are given the light orange colour. --Delta-NC (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Had some spare time so I messed about with a few colour ideas and have updated them to what I think is a fair compromise, seem to offer in my view a better 'first glance' distinction between the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party. --Delta-NC (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm happy with the change in colours, but please don't forget to do the other articles in the sequence, and to change the information at the top of each article on what the colours represent. Warofdreams talk 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colours 

message: I'd like to include the full date of each by-election in the tables.  As they go back, there are more and more each year.  However, I don't want to increase the width of the table any further, so I'd like to remove the "Retained" column, turn the information in it into notes, and make the notes more prominent by placing the reference numbers in the "By-election" column, after the name of the constituency.  Does anyone object to this proposal? Warofdreams talk 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done the two most recent Parliaments, as an example. Warofdreams talk 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full dates 

message: This page states that David Marshall resigned due to "Ill Heath", however it was also widely reported that he had been abusing public finances by use of his expenses. The article about him on Wikipedia states this and has references. Should this therefore not also be mentioned? --Delta-NC (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Marshall resigned due to heath? 

message: I'd like to suggest a new article be created at UK Parliamentary by-elections. This could include general information about by-elections, such as is currently in the Resignations sub-section of this article, perhaps some of what's in United Kingdom by-election records and material not currently covered (conventions around who moves the writ and Speaker's Conferences suggesting changes). There would then also be clear links to this article and United Kingdom by-election records. What say you all? Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Following the complete lack of comment here(!), I have been bold and created the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for re-organisation

message: A byelection gain is a rare thing. It is a signal mark of political and electoral change, and is treated as such by the public, the political parties and the media. Some byelection gains are remembered for decades after they happen. So we highlight gains in the table to enable readers to pick them out.
Where a Speaker of the House of Commons retires, and the party they used to belong to takes back the seat, this is not in any meaningful sense a 'gain'. The Speaker is not a different party; he or she is no party. F. W. S. Craig always used to count the Speaker as remaining for electoral purposes a member of the party from which they had originally come. It is quite wrong to highlight occasions on which a byelection in the Speaker's seat has been won by ordinary candidate of the same party the Speaker used to belong to. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam, you and I have been editing Wikipedia pages for some time, and I have always found your contributions to be exceptionally helpful. On this issue, however, I think our difference in opinion is a very unfortunate case indeed. I notice that, if I take the two by-elections on this page, West Bromwich and Glasgow, the corresponding articles call the results Labour Gains, and these articles have not been changed in this regard for some time. I take the point that gains are rare. I agree with you that Speakers are not ordinary candidates and their elections are not treated in ordinary ways. But the fundamental point is accuracy. The candidate who won West Bromwich West in 1997 was "Speaker Seeking Re-election". The winner of the subsequent by-election was a Labour Party candidate. In very clear terms, the result of 2000 was a Labour gain from a Speaker hold. I take the point that Betty Boothroyd would have returned to being a Labour *member*, but she was not a Labour *MP*. That is why I urge you to keep this page showing gains. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a gain and what is not a gain 

message: If the by-elections were going to be held on 29 November (two weeks after the others), wouldn't the writs have been moved yesterday, 6 November (two weeks after the writ was moved in those elections, 23 October)? There are no bank holidays in the relevant periods, so I don't see why the calendar math would be different. -Rrius (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I was surprised to see that the writs were not moved. The next date is 6 December, which seems very unusual for a by-election, although Labour clearly think they've nothing to worry about in holding out.... doktorb wordsdeeds 13:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates for forthcoming elections 

message: In passing, I notice that all these index articles are collated in roughly 20-year blocks. This suggests to me that after the 2015 election, there should be created (either 'all out', or at the very least as a redirect), "List of United Kingdom by-elections (2015-present)".  Clearly this is not priority number 1, but just to get it out there for comment and discussion..... doktorb wordsdeeds 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason why this article can't be broken at an earlier point - at either 1997 or 2010 general elections, for instance. At either point the two long-term governments covered in this article remain intact in either one or two articles. Starting a new article after the next election would mean an empty page or a very small article for some time, and if the present government is returned (as coalition or otherwise) it would be spread over two articles. Probably not a huge deal, but if breaking a multi-term government can be avoided it should be avoided. Fan | talk | 14:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Asking for comment from User:Bondegezou, User:Headhitter, User:Warofdreams, User:Lugnuts and any others. Should we stick to roughly 20-year "blocks" for these articles (so begin a new "2015-present" article after next year's election? Or, as User:Fanx suggests, should another option be looked at to avoid an empty page/small article? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I favour User:Fanx's approach. The breaks should be at historically significant times, so a break at 2010 probably makes more sense than one at 2015. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks User:Bondegezou. If that turns out to be the consensus, it will be easy to take the current Parliament's (many, many, many!) byelections and transfer them over the new article. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming back to this, I agree with User:Fanx. I think a split in 2010 would make sense. That's more than 20 years (which was mentioned in another post) but as far as I can tell there are fewer by-elections now than there used to be decades ago, looking at the lists of the older by-elections. --Maxl (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the blocks conform to major boundary changes so if anything we should be realigning this article which currently covers seats under four different sets. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article after 2015? 

message: When I have tried to note the anomalous situation of the two recent Sinn Fein "resignations" in this article's first section my edits have been undone by User:Doktorbuk, with accusations that I am attempting to spread misinformation and lies. The article is currently as reverted by Doktorbuk, an edit that earned him a temporary ban for edit warring, and at risk of being banned myself I'm refraining from editing the article further. As it stands the article states that resignation means that an, incumbent was appointed on his or her own request to an "office of profit under the Crown". Since neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness could be said to have been appointed at his ... request, and a prime ministerial apology to Mr Adams supports this, I feel that the article is incorrect in this small matter. I am at a loss to understand why this appears as such a contentious edit, unless I have inadvertently started unpicking the very fabric that binds Northern Ireland to the Union. Fan | talk | 12:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Doktorbuk has rightly been banned for edit warring as he has reverted your edits without giving a satisfactory reason and without engaging in discussion on this Talk page. I think your text about the exceptions made for Sinn Fein MPs should be reinstated, but it might be better to have it as a sub-section within the existing section. Headhitter (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A subsection would make it clearer, I'm sure. Given the hostility and the number of reverts this has created you'll understand my reticence to further edit the article - at least in the short term. Fan | talk | 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is a list of byelections and not the place for a detailed discussion of the constitutional complexities of the means by which the Belfast West and Mid-Ulster constituencies were rendered vacant. The issue is already explained at Belfast West by-election, 2011#Vacation of the seat and in Resignation from the British House of Commons#Sinn Féin resignations. I think the short explanation at the head of the table is sufficient, and because this article links to both the other articles where the situation is discussed in more detail, no further explanation is required; to have one would needlessly complicate matters. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Since these two resignations and the "constitutional complexities" they created (along with their subsequent by-elections) took place within the period covered by this article I wanted no more than to neutralise the now false claim that these by-elections were occasioned by the incumbent being appointed on his or her own request to one of the stewardships by deleting the six struck-through words, "Where the cause of by-election is given as "resignation" or "seeks re-election", this indicates that the incumbent was appointed on his or her own request to an "office of profit under the Crown"". No long explanations, since they were covered elsewhere. It was only when Doktorbuk started edit warring on this point that I expanded into outlining these particular resignations. I'd rather keep it simple, but it must be honest. Fan | talk | 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinn Fein resignations 

message: I note the gain colour has been changed to "plum" from grey-ish. It appears that heretofore only the Con, Lab, LD and Nationalists have had their colours incorporated into their gains record. Other parties' gains seem to be under the catch-all grey-ish colour scheme. UKIP has not (yet) achieved at least "third-party" status in elections, so I wonder if this colour scheme is appropriate. Agnostic myself, just opening up the debate! RodCrosby (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "UKIP has not (yet) achieved at least "third-party" status in elections" They were 1st in the euros, 1st/2nd more by elections than anyone else, have been 3rd in opinion polls for years, 3rd in 2014 & 2013 locals. No reliable source lumps them in with others. Have the SNP achieved third party status at a general election? Is there any reason not to use UKIPS colours? Is there any reason not to use Respects colours? What's to debate? Iliekinfo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the avoidance of doubt, by "elections" I am referring to Westminster general elections (votes). The Liberals (and LDs) have been in the top three (UK) throughout their history. The SNP have been in the top three (except 1983 and 1987) in Scotland since 1970. Plaid in the top three in Wales at some points. UKIP may yet join the club, but they aren't there yet. RodCrosby (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to revert Clacton back to grey, for now, as assuming UKIP being something other than a "one off" is very close to breaking WP:CRYSTAL. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't it about time we gave each winning party a shade of their standard /meta/color ? There is no rational reason to exclude some parties while including others. The fact that they have gained a seat in Parliament makes them significant enough for this minor consideration. Furthermore, the shading should not be applied to the whole row - it doesn't make sense to have constituency, by-election date, retired or deceased ex-MP, their party and the by-election's cause all coloured to a shade that only represents the winning candidate and their party. Fan | talk | 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The standard works over the past 50 odd years seem to refer to Conservative and Labour as the "major" or "main" parties, Liberals and Nationalists as "third" parties, and all others as "Other" or "minor" parties. I suggest we wait until May 2015 to see if UKIP can render this nomenclature redundant. I am in favour of keeping the shading across the whole row however. Its purpose is to easily highlight a gain for the reader, and it's difficult to think of a better method than the current one.RodCrosby (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the amount of debate (ie any) over this weird. If ya feel that strongly change it back, it doesn't really matter. I don't get it...it's just the same shading that's done as standard across wikipedia...Iliekinfo (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: User talk:Fanx and User:Iliekinfo, the thing is, we have had a very workable situation so far, which has not had supporters of the DUP or Respect or others demand their colour be used. UKIP winning a seat has now brought the situation into question. We don't know if UKIP will win loads of seats to become a "main" party yet, so implementing a change from just one by-election victory is not to be passed without debate. The precedent it sets could be very significant (do we go back decades to retrofit gains from other parties? Do we add UKIP onto infoboxes for the next general election as they are now to be considered "main" for the purposes of election articles?) I think it is skirting on CRYSTAL to implement a UKIP colour on this article, and wonder if it's better left undone for now. If Rochester/Strood makes it two seats, then maybe the argument can be had again. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

text: @User talk:Doktorbuk, if this were a question of mainness of parties, we should follow RS which do (for the time being, meaning for the time of the election(s) in question) call UKIP a main party. BBC guidance they should be treated equally, etc. However, I don't think that's a thing. I really don't think there's anything special or significant about coloured shading, it's just something wikipedia uses when a party has a well known colour....it's not intended to bestow any kind of special status. It's used in many many articles without (AFAIK) comment. Iliekinfo (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Fanx that using a different colour here does not create any sort of precedent for whether UKIP should be in an infobox on another article. We use distinct colours for smaller parties on all sorts of articles: I see no problem with doing so here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: UKIP gain, change of colour

message: It was discussed above, and consensus seemed to favour a new article for 2010 onwards. Do we still want to go ahead with that? I'd say we should as the article is getting quite long now and a "2010 to present" article would now have a reasonable amount of substance. Frinton100 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in the absence of any objections I've gone ahead and done it. Still needs some tidying though. I've also re-directed all of the generic pages like List of UK by-elections to the new article. Frinton100 (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article? 

message: For the 2000 Falkirk West by-election it says that the cause was "Resignation following election to the Scottish Parliament", but this is slightly misleading. Dennis Canavan had been a member of the Scottish parliament for around 18 months when he stood down, in the words of his article "to concentrate on representing his constituents in the Scottish Parliament", so it was not his election that triggered the contest. There was also the issue of his break with the Labour Party, but I think it is best to say "Resignation in order to concentrate on his role as a Member of the Scottish Parliament" and have edited the page accordingly. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 Falkirk West cause - explaining edit