Talk:1895 United Kingdom general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cordite vote[edit]

The PM going into this election was Salisbury. The Rosebery government had resigned in June over the cordite vote and Salisbury had formed a minority government. It was his decision to dissolve. Perhaps an appropriate coda could be added to the text of the article to make this clear. 188.28.17.76 (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Unonists[edit]

I see that, for whatever reason, the Liberal Unionists haven't been given a separate total in the election returns. I tend to think they should have an entirely separate entry from the Conservatives at least through this election, but certainly their total should be listed, if found. Counting through the list of individual members elected, if you count together those listed as Liberal Unionists, those listed as "Unionists" (who all seem to actually be Liberal Unionists), the one guy listed as an "Ulster Unionist" (who may be inappropriate to include), and those of the people with no party listed who are listed in their own articles as Liberal Unionists, I come down with 64 - which suggests 347 Conservatives and 64 Liberal Unionists. But obviously a better source than my individually counting through members is in order. john k (talk) 01:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It'd also be good for this election, and for 1892, to separate out the Parnellites and anti-Parnellites, if possible. john k (talk) 01:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good; the difficulty is in getting a good source for the figures. As luck would have it, I've found a good source for the Liberal Unionist figures: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=hfiFOImjjN8C&pg=PA259#v=onepage&q&f=false. Incidentally, I have no idea why Harland is listed as "Ulster Unionist" - the Ulster Unionist Party hadn't been founded at the time. Harland may well have been a member of the Irish Unionist Alliance, but it's certain that he was a Conservative. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figures[edit]

Somehow the figures in the article are mismatched. In the table at the side it says that 313 Conservatives and 71 Liberal Unionists were elected, how can that sum up to 343? It should be 384. And in the box at the right it says that 411 Conservatives were elected. That's yet another figure. Which figure is right now? --Maxl (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism from earlier today. I've reverted it. Warofdreams talk 01:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders' Seats[edit]

As both Primrose and Gayscone-Cecil were peers rather than MPs, their peerages have been given in place of constituencies. Primrose, however, was sitting in the House of Lords as a baron rather than an earl. The earldom of Rosebery was in the peerage of Scotland so did not entitle membership of the other place unless the holder was elected as a representative peer. Primrose took his seat by virtue of the subsidiary title Baron Rosebery, created for his father in the peerage of the United Kingdom. I have corrected the infobox in light of this. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Unionist leader[edit]

Who should be considered the Liberal Unionist leader in 1895? I'd say it was still Devonshire at least through this election, and possibly even in 1900 if we're counting the Liberal Unionists separately there. But I'd be open to evidence either way. john k (talk) 16:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]