Talk:United Kingdom general election records

message: Please try to follow the style of the by-elections page: UK by-election records RodCrosby 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This heading is unclear - I think it means that the party of the victor did not stand in that seat.  Is that right? Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that is right.  As you find the heading unclear, could you suggest an alternative? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a suggested change Dupont Circle (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be obvious that we are talking about individual constituency contests throughout this article. The proposed change is cumbersome. An introductory note is better. RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: General election victors had not contested previous election

message: I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'Parties without representation in Parliament' as e.g. Sinn Fein and Respect did win seats (or a seat, in the latter case) at the relevant election. Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This means that the parties had not been represented in Parliament until the election in question.  The Respect case is marginal, so I've included a note about it.  Would you like to suggest a way to rephrase the blurb to make it clearer? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor parties other strong performance

message: for this category I mean sitting MPs, which invariably means defeated, returned at a by-election, defeated again. Nellist and Mitchell don't belong here, but maybe under another category, durable losers?? RodCrosby 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: MPs defeated at consecutive general elections

message: According to this respected source, someone got 0 votes in 1983. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge83/results.htm
Can this be verified in another source? RodCrosby 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know this is rather an old comment, but this clarifies the situation - his candidature was disallowed (this is actually covered in our article on the British Movement.  It's not clear whether he appeared on the ballot and his votes were not counted, or whether he was not permitted to appear on the ballot, but either way, he didn't get 0 votes in any meaningful sense. Warofdreams talk 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 0 votes?

message: Crewe et al assign a 1979 notional Provisional Sinn Fein vote in this constituency and others in 1979. Upon investigation, it appears they are referring to Republican Clubs, who stood in 1979. Without having a theological debate on the "Rock Family Trees" of Irish Republicanism, for practical purposes, is Crewe right? RodCrosby (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crewe is mistaken.  Republican Clubs became the Workers Party and took fifth place in 1983.  They had split with [Provisional] Sinn Féin in 1971.  SF didn't stand in any elections post-split until they sponsored Anti H-Block candidates in 1981, then stood under their own name in 1982. Warofdreams talk 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Crewe must have been of the opinion that their votes were interchangeable with PSF? RodCrosby (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So it appears, but it seems rather odd, given that the clear successor of Republican Clubs also stood in 1983. Warofdreams talk 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Belfast West 1983

message: This article says that the drop in share of the vote for the conservatives in 1997 in Tatton was 24.7%, but the article for Tatton says it was a 17.6% drop. I dunno which is right, just thought I'd point it out Jh39 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tatton 

message: The record swing in the 1970 election was toward an independent candidate, not to the Conservatives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._O._Davies)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.150.10 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the swing is correctly given; the two-party swing can and is given between any two parties which contest two elections in a row.  Incidentally, the swing from Labour to Davies cannot really be calculated, as Davies stood for Labour in 1966. Warofdreams talk 15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Two party swing seems odd to me, and you might well be right, but can it really be said to be such a big swing to the Conservatives when they only got 9% of the vote? In 1966 they got 13%. Surely it can't be a swing to a party whose vote is decreased? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(politics)#United_Kingdom http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge70/i14.htm http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge66/i14.htm  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.89.222 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's a swing to the Conservatives because the Labour vote declined by far more.  In an unusual case like this, it's not the most useful figure, but it is worth stating in this article, because it remains the record. Warofdreams talk 09:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merthyr 

message: This article has been kept at AfD.  During the discussion, I see that User:Claritas raised the following issues: "The first is that it claims to take into account only results from after 1945 (which is a fairly arbitrary point), and secondly that it actually doesn't follow that claim. The choice of which records should be hosted on the page is entirely arbitrary - I can think of plenty of possible records which do not appear on the page ("Highest percentage of vote"). The choice of records and the choice of which results can be counted towards the records seems fairly arbitrary to me. The article is in need of being split due to its excessive length, but there's no logical way of doing it."
I tend to agree that these are significant issues, but I would like to see the article kept and improved.  Does anyone have any suggestions for addressing these? Warofdreams talk 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As presently written the article does not present the distinction strongly enough, when in the introduction the reader easily sees the "Before" and "After 1945s", and the "unless otherwise mentioned" which may be construed as a loophole. I have only added events pre-1945 with the understanding this page is discussing the Parliament of the United Kingdom as established since 1801.Cloptonson (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for article improvement 

message: You include Gladstone in the table of Party Leaders or Deputy Party Leaders who lost seats at General Elections, stating (footnote) he was "defeated" in South West Lancashire yet the constituency succession table in his Wikipedia biography states "constituency abolished" at the general election.  Which is correct?Cloptonson (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: William Gladstone

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United Kingdom general election records. 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/20090327071219/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928094928/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf
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) 22:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under the section Candidate Records Lady Astor is mentioned as a first woman to take her seat in 1919, but her entry to the Commons was a by-election; there was no general election after 1918 until 1922. Lady Astor won then but so did Margaret Wintringham, who had also debuted at a by-election, in 1921.Cloptonson (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have amended the sub-section's information to reflect above facts.Cloptonson (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lady Astor

message: The Union with Scotland Act 1706 states:
This would seem to render the Test Act's prohibition on non-Anglicans invalid to the extent that it would exclude Presbyterians, whether in Scotland or in England. As such it would seem redundant for them to take Anglican communion just to fulfill the Test Act's requirements. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presbyterians 

message: Is there any chance of getting percentage of popular vote figures for the governing party after each election?
Something like this table for Canada's general elections on the Simon Fraser University website:
https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html
2604:3D09:A87F:FD10:E85C:72A0:E06E:803B (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all in the articles on each general election.  Have you got some sort of record in mind that would be interesting (maybe highest and lowest share for winning party, second place, etc)? Warofdreams talk 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any chance of percentage of popular vote figures? 

message: While the article is long, I don't see any obvious countermeasures. It's already a long list of factoids so no easy condensing can be done. There are already loads and loads of subheaders. And I don't see any clear subarticles. 
So I've considered it and per WP:HASTE, if we're not forced into action for technical reasons, this article is fine as-is.
If you disagree you can always reinstate the  tag. But frankly, it's better you do the rearranging yourself, and spare us a tag that just sits there. You can always use this talk section to ask for input on which parts to move out into subarticles. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: A check of the months of years in which the listed elections were held has shown that some intervals were (albeit technically) shorter than the length of interval ascribed them. For example the 1935 election took place in November but the 1945 election was in July of that year, making interval not 10 years but strictly speaking 9 years.  Three sets of intervals given as 6 years in fact had a smaller time difference because the second election of the pair failed to make it to the anniversary of the first election, making them short of the at least 6 years goalpost (they are 1812-1818, 1868-1874 and 1900-1906). I have amended the list accordingly, removing those listed intervals that failed to reach the 6 year anniversary.Cloptonson (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: List 'Longest period without a general election'