Talk:2009 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom

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

European Union Low‑importance

	European Union portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the European Union 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.European UnionWikipedia:WikiProject European UnionTemplate:WikiProject European UnionEuropean Union articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑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

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Infobox Labour seat numbers[edit]

The info box has Labour going from 19 seats down to 13, but calls this a drop of 5. Which of the numbers is wrong?137.222.142.50 (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see -5 is the 'relative seat change'. But it's confusing that in the table 'seat change' is given as -6 but in the infobox 'seat change' is given as -5.137.222.142.50 (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland[edit]

Parties and coverage should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.210.111 (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A column in the NI table should show candidate names, as there's only one per party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.227.115 (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New seats[edit]

2 things:

(a) might be 73 now not 72

(b) seat allocation is different

See http://www.vote-2007.co.uk/index.php?topic=1581.0 AndrewRT(Talk) 21:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee has now proposed 73 for UK:

Member State Proposed new proposed distribution2009-2014 Germany 96 France 74 United Kingdom 73 Italy 72 Spain 54 Poland 51 Romania 33 Netherlands 26 Greece 22 Portugal 22 Belgium 22 Czech Rep. 22 Hungary 22 Sweden 20 Austria 19 Bulgaria 18 Denmark 13 Slovakia 13 Finland 13 Ireland 12 Lithuania 12 Latvia 9 Slovenia 8 Estonia 6 Cyprus 6 Luxembourg 6 Malta 6 EU-27 750

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/001-11037-274-10-40-901-20071001IPR11035-01-10-2007-2007-false/default_en.htm

AndrewRT(Talk) 15:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Super Thursday" is now very unlikely[edit]

From the article:

It has been predicted that the election may coincide with the next general election.[1]

The reference links to a People story from March 2007. The political landscape has changed hugely since then, and it now seems very unlikely that the general election will be held until 2010. Loganberry (Talk) 12:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First poll[edit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/4214369/Loosen-Britains-ties-with-European-Union-say-two-thirds-of-voters..html

YouGov polled 2,157 adults between 6 January and 8 January: (+/- from 2004 election)

Con 35% (+8) Lab 29% (+6) LD 15% (n/c) UKIP 7% (-9) Grn 5% (-1) BNP 4% (-1) SNP/PC 4% (+2)

--Mais oui! (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, election is in roughly four to five weeks from now. Are there any other opinion polls? Having one from January is probably totally way off. - I am guessing coverage for this election is very low. Are there any turn out figures? --Lexxus2010 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still no other European voting intentions polls since YouGov/TPA one in January, I'm afraid. One would suspect that we might begin to get some in the next couple of weeks, especially now that the official 'Notice of Election' has been made. Spiritofsussex (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls: principles[edit]

I have certain concerns about this section, namely that the Predict09 website is not proper opinion polling, rather an adjustment of 2004 results to account for the new regional allocations of MEPs. Secondly, all future polls should be specifically about voting intentions for the European elections. In particular, percentage-of-the-vote results for the minor parties (UKIP, Greens, SNP, BNP et al) differ greatly between national and European elections. Also, as a rule, there should be static links to trusted sites, i.e. major polling organisations, or national newspapers.

I vote that the Predict09 results be moved or removed:

Furthermore, if we are happy as a 'community' for there to be opinion poll results on this page, then more up-to-date results ought to be sourced.Orthorhombic (talk) 14:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predict09 is not an opinion poll, it is a re-working of past results to fit the new seat allocation. Result - it should be removed. As for other polls, yes we should include them BUT not too many (Wiki is not a news paper), nor too many from a single polling agency. doktorb _words^deeds 15:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Predict09 should be removed as it is not an opinion poll. As far as I am aware, the TPA/YouGov poll from January is the only European voting intention poll that has been carried out so far - although one would expect for more to be carried out and published as polling day gets closer. Spiritofsussex (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Given that there has been no further comment, I will remove the line in question. Orthorhombic (talk) 09:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

England, Scotland, Wales =[edit]

As well as a Great Britain Result, there should also be an "England" result, a "Wales" result and a "Scotland" result

Several Political Parties are now only competing in their own Country

ie

SNP PC English Democrats —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Party Ave![edit]

WP is a poorer place for not having an article on these folks. Drutt (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing stopping you writing one. - Galloglass 20:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is there enough to write about?doktorb _words^deeds 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Roman Party Ave! - currently up for deletion. Greenshed (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Lucas[edit]

Could someone find a head and shoulders of Caroline Lucas as a matter of urgency. I have found pictures for the other four leaders for the parties that were already represented in these election boxes. Orthorhombic (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable[edit]

Should the tables on this page be sortable? I feel being able to sort them could aid in understanding the results, when they become apparent. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final results for England, Scotland, Wales[edit]

I know Scotland has not been officially declared, but unless 20,000+ people have moved to the Western Isles, the results are completely certain in Britain now. Con 25, UKIP 13, Lab 13, Lib Dem 11, 2 Green, BNP 2, SNP 2, Plaid Cymru 1. I suggest we update the infobox at the top of the page with the new seat numbers. Are there any objections? --Woodgreener (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who should be on the infobox?[edit]

I do not think it is right that the Greens and the BNP are on the infobox when the SNP equaly got two MEPs elected. I suggest removing the Greens and the BNP and just having the four main parties up. I don't know if it's possible with the infobox, but its layout would, in that case, be better to have two at the top and two at the bottom. Jolly Ω Janner 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit OTT to have more than the main parties on there. I would agree with just having the main three or four. Setwisohi (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest to keep the main four parties as they're the only ones that are well above 10%. That appears to be a good rule for the future unless Labour will drop below 10% next time :D (who knows?).--Kojozone (talk) 17:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The policy for general election infoboxes has been, any national party to win seats has been entered into the infobox. The SNP and Plaid are not national parties so they don't get a place in the box. I think the same policy should apply here. --Philip Stevens (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, Scotland and Wales are separate nations, and these are their national parties. DR2006kl (talk) 07:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I said 'national' I meant UK-wide. A party should only be in the infobox if it's won seats and has fielded candidates across Great Britain (if not Northern Ireland). --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Separate nations? They're part of the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.24.101 (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nation does not mean the same thing as state or country. --Joowwww (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SNP and Plaid, and to that effect, the DUP and Sinn Fein, only field candidates in one region, whereas the BNP and Greens fielded candidates in all of Great Britain (plus a Green candidate in Northern Ireland). Personally, I think any party should be eligible for EP election infobox inclusion if a) they field candidates in more than one region (which would discount the Roman Party if they won) and b) they win a seat. WRT UK general elections, I think that a cutoff between 2% (12 seats) and 5% (30 seats) would make them eligible for infobox inclusion. 15-20 seems to be a magic number. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but we are clearly giving too much weight to the BNP and the Greens! For starters the Greens are not a "UK national party" as they only field candidates in England and Wales and only have representation in England! They're called the "Green Party of England and Wales". I would be prepared to consider adding them if theygained more than 10% of the vote or at least 7seats (either or) in the future. As far as both the Greens and the BNP go neither substantially increased their share of the vote or their number of total votes, this is because of the demise of the Labour vote, not likely to be repeated. I shall remove them, we seem to have consensus apart from one lone editor. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheffno1gunner (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tory's new group in parliament[edit]

Could we have a section on how the Conservative Party (with the largest number of MEPs) intends to leave the EPP-ED, and create their own political group? – Anxietycello (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise a section on UKIP as there is no longer enough support for the ID group to continue. (Most other eurosceptic parties were wiped out; Sweden, Denmark, Ireland and Poland). Setwisohi (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Irritating comment[edit]

as the UKIP had more votes than Labour, it is disingenuous to list Labour above the UKIP even if they will have the same number of MEP's. 09:35, 8 June 2009 209.191.2.162

I had to respond to the above comment by someone editing the article page. Considering that Labour had been above UKIP in the last election and that the Scottish results had only just come out, it real is stupid to accuse other editors of being "disingenuous". No-one was trying to give the wrong impression; the page obviously just needed more work. 79.77.195.161 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Northern Ireland treated separately?[edit]

It seems odd to treat Northern Ireland separately. It would seem more consistent either to give the results for the United Kingdom as a whole or else to give results for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - or perhaps for each of the twelve regions with a total for the whole UK. Is it because NI uses the single transferable vote system? If so, it would be helpful to provide an explanation just before the table.Apuldram (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Different political parties and a different voting system. I think it should remain separate. David (talk) 13:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Wales have different political parties as well, so that doesn't explain the different treatment. If it is because of the different voting system, I say again it would be helpful to explain this just before the table.Apuldram (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC notes that they use a seperate system. Anxietycello (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Labour and Conservative get into Wales, Labour, Lib Dems and Conservative get into Scotland. Where are they in Northern Ireland? Jolly Ω Janner 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatives of course won an MEP from Northern Ireland and made a big deal about having MEPs from all four constituent parts of the UK. Nonetheless, I still think we should keep NI separate and consider splitting out Wales and Scotland too. English regions should be kept together as they all had the same major parties contesting. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all regions and nations had some parties standing over there (e.g. Mebyon Kernow, the Cornish nationalists, in the South West) but listing all 12 results separately will overload the page. The reason for separating Northern Ireland is purely because it's on a different voting system. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Voting System?[edit]

Speaking as a British Citizen who lives outside the UK and so has been disenfranchised from all elections, can somebody please add a section explaining what voting system is used?

There are multi-member constituencies and more than one candidate from each party in each constituency. I have read elsewhere that it is some sort of party list PR system. But do you put an "X" against one party, or 1,2,3 etc., or what? How is it decided which of the candidates from a party gets the seat(s) it won, are you allowed to distinguish between different candidates within a party (e.g. Vote for A and B from party 1, and Q from party 2)? And how does it work with independent candidates?

Did the government provide any leaflet explaining the voting system? Could somebody add text from this or a link? TiffaF (talk) 08:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the D'Hondt system. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre - are you sure that it's the D'Hondt system? Applying the D'Hondt system to UK South East votes results in 5 Conservative, 2 UKIP, 1 LibDem, 1 Green and 1 Labour - which is not the correct result. The Largest Remainder System yields the correct result. I suspect that is the system that was used.

Tiffa - the UK Government issued a booklet to poll stations, which explained the system. But that's not much help to you if you have no access to a British library.Apuldram (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's d'hondt doktorb _words^deeds 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this German page http://www.wahlrecht.de/ausland/europa.htm (dedicated to voting systems), they do use the d"Hondt system in Britain. ~~@ the non-signing user above: The link you give doesn't work. Isn"t remainder system just another name for d'Hondt?~~ --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Apuldram: The South East results are in agreement with d'Hondt=Jefferson: Calculating with Jefferson, you get a seat for each full 7% of your vote share there - check it out. The Conservatives just barely "lost" a fifth seat.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source of figures[edit]

Do the BBC's figures have official status? Is there no official source for these figures?
Has anyone seen a figure for "invalid votes"?

Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral Commission is using the BBC as their source for the figures at the moment, but I expect that the Electoral Commission will publish their own full results in the near future. However, until this happens, it would appears they are endorsing the BBC's results. Spiritofsussex (talk) 08:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. They do better in Bulgaria. You'd think the UK was a third-world country. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning parties graphic[edit]

The graphic displaying the winning parties in each region appears to contain an error. In the north west england constituency it displays the liberal democrat seat with the colour yellow, the same colour used for the scottish national party. I think that it's supposed to be orange like the other lib dem seats. Chris Davies is the MEP whose seat is coloured wrong. 03haya (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info Box Review- Removal of BNP and Green Party[edit]

I realise that the above discussion about the point of who should be included in the infobox is now a tad out of date, 3years so. Therefore I seek to review the decision that wasn't taken. The Green Party of England and Wales has just as much claim to be in the info box as the SNP. For one thing the Green Party is not a full "UK-national party", another thing the party has just as many seats as the SNP. Furthermore there is even less justification for including the BNP on the same basis.

Also we have a set precedent here for EP elections, in 1999, the UK Independence Party made their breakthrough to the European Parliament achieveing 3seats, this fell below the 10% share of the vote and indeed they didn't gain anywhere near as many seats as the 3 main parties, therefore it is fully justifiable that they were not included in the info box! UKIP's 3 seats in 1999 is more than the Green's and BNP's seats in 2009, it is therefore inconsitent to include them in the info box. I can see no justification for including either party. Furthermore their shares of the vote only increased because of the collapse of the Labour vote, not because they'd upped their own votes. This was the worst point in the Labour Party's history for 25years and can teefore be considered an anomoly. But that is not even the point, the point is that we are being inconsistent and giving undue weight to minor parties!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it makes no sense, we should not include Greens or the BNP. Your argument about Labour, their demise and the share of the vote are not the relevent arguments here! What is relevent is the precedent set in 1999 and the performance of both the Greens and the BNP themselves. I think the right decission was made in 1999, yes it was a breakthrough but so was Caroline Lucas in 2010 to UK Parliament, she wasn't included and given undue weight. A breakthrough should only be counted if it is clearly of any real significance. Less than 10% of the vote and only 2 seats is not of any real significance, even under proportional representation! They should be removed, especially considering the Greens aren't even a fully national party!Nick Nick Dancer 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we should remove them. I can't see why they were added in the 1st place, it's like we change the rules from one election to the next. So do we have consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it looks like people aren't bothered anymore about something that happened 3 years ago. I can't see anyone else coming on here to say anything, so on the basis that we have consensus of 3 to Nil, I'll change it back. Thanks to those of you that contributed! Nick Nick Dancer 19:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! I wasn't sure heher to do it or not or wait r a few more but I guess your right, this page doesn't exactly get much traffic anymore! Great stuff! sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfair and unjust to make choices based on long since dead discussions, and to do so without consensus is bad behaviour in Wikipedia terms. Consensus is fluid and arguments change. Don't just consider your opinions to be correct, or other people's opinions to be the same three years after the initial debate. As for the topic itself, of course the article doesn't get much traffic any more, but page view figures should never be used as evidence in arguments. The fact that parties are included one year and not another is not justifiable evidence either - look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to learn why. As it happens, summary boxes attract the most criticism around these parts, just look at the recent run of by-elections, especially Rotherham, and the Next UK general election talk page is pretty heated too! The debate as to what to include, and why, is a perennial problem, and these are not resolved by making arbitrary choices without debate, as you have done. My general rule of thumb is that a party should have saved its deposit to be included. For these elections, run differently and with an alternative voting system, we should be fair and focused on inclusion. That means to me that we should include both Greens and BNP - they both achieved a substantial amount of votes and seats and our article should reflect that. Please note, finally, that your analysis about the Labour vote etc. falls foul of WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS and must be disregarded on those terms doktorb _words^deeds 20:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sure, I get what your saying about my analysis of vote share etc, that's not relevent, so I strike it from the record! However what I have said about consistency is relevent! I bet you haven't even been to have a look at the 1999 EP election resuts! Notice that UKIP are not included in that sumary box despite achieving a vote share of 7% and 3seats. In 2009, Mr Griffin's party only achieved 6.4% of the vote and 2 seats but they are included in the info box, this is clearly inconsistent! The same should for the Green Party, they only have 2 seats. IF 3 seats is not enough, then neither is 2! I know about the controversy on those pages, yes but it's a case of being consistent, those other pages are completely different, they even have a different electoral system. I would argue that the incusion of these 2 parties actually expands the inconsistency because of how tight the rues are for the other elections. Your trying to have your pie and eat it, to include these 2 partys is both inconsistent and biased! sheffno1gunner (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have alsobeen trying to diffuse the situation on the other pages you mention! And let me tell you, you get nowhere by being rigid and obstanant with people, you've got to be prepared to talk throgh each point. No, no, no is not pragmatic! I'm pleased sheffno1gunner has recognised that their analysis is not relevent, so can we move on from that point Doktorbuk? It's done. However, they do have a point here about 1999, I suggest you look at it, to my mind we've either got to remove the Greens and BNP from 2009 or add UKIP to 1999. To me it seems we should remove the Greens and BNP and not add UKIP because the info box is just a summary, the full results can be seen below! These 2 parties have substantially less votes and representation, it would be like including the Greens and Respect in the 2015 General Election box, solely on the bassis of previous results. That would be daft! Also the point about nationalist parties and their seats adds weight toths argument of over egging the pudding! I can't see any reason to include them, as the guy says, it's inconsistent! We can't have it both ways!Nick Nick Dancer 21:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, Doktorbuk, what's your problem, are you a BNP supporter or something? You are looking pretty desperate in all of this, I can't see any other reason why you'd be so unable to wrap your head around such basic logic! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can the IP user not say things like that. It is not helpful and frankly it's non of your business which party they support! Let's get on with the ssue in hand! Also Doktorbuk, your 5% rule of thumb is relevent for by-elections and individual Westminster seats because of deposits but it has no relevence for nation wide elections where the info box summarises the overall result. This requires a subtle bi of pragmatism to look at a range of evidence so we report reality, we can't simply do our own research and base it on our own opinions! We've set a precedent here! Yes party's come and go but we can't say "this party can be included with 2 seats... but we're not going to include this party with 3 seats". That is inconsistent and that is the position we are in now if you compare the 1999 results to the 2009 results!Nick Nick Dancer 21:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP 217, I'm a Liberal Democrat, a member since April 2000, so slurs about BNP membership reflect more on you than they do either me or the issue at hand. On to the summary box problem - this is a perennial issue, and one which I don't think can be easily resolved. It will be considered biased by some people if we scrap the Green and BNP parties from their places. It will be considered biased by others if we retain them. I put it to you all that having a firm and fixed rule simply doesn't work - for reasons both in and outside the policy of WP:OR it's not a simple case of drawing up a rule and using it for everything to come and everything that's been.

I would suggest we open up this discussion to more people. This means letting people from the politics project aware that this page has had the dust blown off it after three years. Only after a greater consensus has been found can we possibly move forward. My position is clear - the results of 2009 provide enough reason to include both Green and BNP boxes doktorb _words^deeds 21:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, look I'm sorry, it was flipant comment that I shouldn't have made, it's non of my business who you support, so sorry. As far as the problem goes, yea please bring more people in! Also why have you not made comment on 1999 results, you've avoided everyone's main point of inconsistency. I get that there should be no hard and fast rule but this is at best giving undue weight to the Greens and BNP! I don't want to fall out with you, I just want this issue resolved fairly, right now I don't see how it is. Also are you widening the debate to see if you can get so that it's not 3 Vs 1. I guess being a Lib Dem, you should be used to being in the minority! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've posted it on the discussion board, no takers yet! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Nick Dancer 22:32, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Doktorbuk: Look what will it take for you to change this page, it's not just the 3 of us now, it's also someone from outside! All this evidence has been presented to you and still you refuse to look at it! What is wrong? It seems that Nick was even considerate enough to put all the information on this talk page (perhaps a bit excessive), so that you could see it because you were clearly ot bothering to click on the links! Very disapointed Doktorbuk, your setting hopes and were jumping through them only to find you've put a piece of glass in the way! Can you try and look at this without getting angry! It's not good for your health! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 10:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"This is getting infuriating", I couldn't have pt it better myself! Doktorbuk could you please engage in discussions instead of edit warring. I have tried to be nice, I have actually stook up for you but you are testing my patience! Will you please look over the evidence, it is abundently clear that there are inconsistencies here! It seems it's one rule for one party and another rule for everyone else, that is not right. I do not want wikipedia to be giving undue weight to some minor parties and not others, it makes us look biased! What exactly is it that you want? What is your problem here? I get your arguments on other pages, like the council elections but not on here!Nick Nick Dancer 11:14, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my comments above, it does appear that infoboxes for previous elections have taken a course similar to that suggested by Rrius and contrary to Doktorbuk's 5% vote share rule. I re-iterate that there is no need for an edit war on this issue, no need for harsh language. I marginally favour Rrius's 4 party solution, but am happy with 6 or 7 parties. Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that sounds to me like we have consensus! I'm happy with Rrius' suggestion (in fact it's the same suggestion at the top of the page!), your happy with it, sheffno1gunner and the IP are happy with it. That's 5 to 1! We have consensus do we not? Bondegezou have you looked at the previous 2 elections? I can't see how a 6party solution would be consistent. But that's fine because evryone's happy with 4!

Could you possibly make the change? Doktorbuk will simply only reverse whatever I do, just because it's me! I don't want an edit war, I just want consensus, we now have consensus so the page can be changed!Nick Nick Dancer 11:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see no urgent need for action. Given the edit-warring, I think the best thing to do is nothing, for the time being. When everyone is calmer and has reflected on the matter, maybe after further editors have expressed views, then further edits can be made. Bondegezou (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think since the 2009 Euro Election issue is in the past we should seek to put it to bed straight away, I have suggested that neither myself or Doktorbuk make the edit on the basis you have just described! I have promised Doktorbuk that I will seek deletion of the 2014 Local elections page on the basis that we should deal with one set of local elections at a time, 2013 hasn't even happened yet. I will do this once the 2009 issue is finally put to bed! Could you please look at this Bondegezou since you are not involved in the heated debate and are therefore more impartial. As you say Rrius' proposals are sensible and now have consensus. Many Thanks Nick Nick Dancer 12:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said elsewhere, no. That is not appropriate. Wikipedia does not work in that manner. You can't trade edits on one page for actions on another. There is no urgency here: neither issue needs to be resolved this week, or this month. Nick, I heartily recommend that you step away from all this for a week. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to step away from this for a week, I just want to know what the action plan is....what happens next, it happened 3 years ago and it's left up in the air. That's all I want to know, I'm happy to remove myself, I just want to know what and when is going to be done!Nick Nick Dancer 12:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, wow this has moved on a lot...but has got nowhere! I have to agree with Nick in that neither he or Doktorbuk should be involved in any further edits! I also agree that this issue needs to be resolved! There is no reason to delay making a decision on this issue if the 2 people in dispute are removed from the equation! Lets get this sorted, Rrius has suggested something that is acceptable and sensible to all of us! I don't see why it can't be done!Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There cannot possibly be any urgency over this change. It is a minor matter, of presentation not fact. There does not need to be an action plan. I am bemused why editors feel something must be done right now. Personally, I see no harm in waiting a few days, seeing if any further editors have ideas, and then seeing where we are. Bondegezou (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine :-), I think that is all any one wanted to hear! Sure, lets wait a few days (up to a week), see if anyone else comes forward like you say and then you guys can make a decision! It's just that I (and probably we) didn't want this issue to simply be brushed under the carpet by the passing of time! A few days/a week is fine by me, I'll make a sticky note to my self to check on the page for then.Nick Nick Dancer 14:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Previous Results Pages[edit]

Here are some links to previous results pages where you can see:

1999 European Parliament election- UKIP with 3seats in 1999 and Green with 2seats - substantially below that of the other parties so not included. 3rd place Lib Dems on 10- big gap between 3 and 10
2004 European Parliament election- Greens with 2Seats in 2004 - substantially below that of the other four parties so not included. 4th place Lib Dems on 12 - big gap between 2 and 12

The argument is that The BNP and Greens are not included on the same basis of the above 2 examples, 2 is still substatially less than 11. Nick Nick Dancer 22:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outside views[edit]

Those who have not been involved in the debate thus far, please leave your view below, please put a * before your response. Thank you.

As Doktorbuk says, the rules are kind of fluid. But I think in this case the argument for exclusion is stronger than that for inclusion. When there are only a few parties that won seats, including all of them is the simplest solution. Where, as here, there are eight parties that took seats, a different measure has to be used. Doktorbuk seems to use vote share as his measure. I may well be wrong; I found trying to read the wall of text above with its almost complete lack of indentation too annoying to try to read that I gave up. In any event, under the vote-share measure, I can understand the decision, although the first excluded party is closer to the last included party than the Greens are to the Lib Dems. I don't think that's the right measure, though. The aim of the election is to win the most seats, so that should be the measure. There is a significant drop-off between fourth and fifth, from 11 to 2, with two more two-seat parties following as well as Plaid with their single seat. So I say, drop all after the Lib Dems, and re-arrange to make the table two-by-two. -Rrius (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rrius argumentation is convincing and I agree. --RJFF (talk) 14:55, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree with Rrius also - organise by number of seats won certainly. Given that I think and the fact that 11 parties won seats, you have to draw a line somewhere or else the infobox gets silly. Personally I wouldn't have images in the infobox at all and would prefer a list with number of seats and vote share, but that seems to be the way it is. In that case draw the line at the obvious cliff edge, which in this case, for this election, is after the fourth party.

Then I'd want people to concentrate on the number of references. Six? Really? The focus should be the article, not the infobox. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A conclusion?[edit]

Election infoboxes, was e'er so much trouble caused by such small things? The full results of the election are given in the article. The infobox is just a summary. As such, what's left out of the infobox shouldn't really matter, yet it does have a significant visual impact on the article and discussion over what to include or exclude often gets emotional. There's no obvious right or wrong answer. Wikipedia policy isn't much help: how do you determine what reliable sources think should be in the infobox? We're left with a rather subjective judgement based on consistency and consensus.

So, what do we do here? Doktorbuk favours including 6 parties, mainly based on those having achieved more than 5% of the total vote share. Everyone else (including me) favours including 4 parties (with different degrees of vehemence): there's a clear drop (a "statistical elbow", as some would call it) between the top 4 and the rest in terms of seats (and, I and others argue, seats matter more than vote share) and (if not as clear) in vote share. The infoboxes for the previous two elections have taken a similar approach.

Wikipedia is not a vote. However, after lengthy discussion, a period of reflection, multiple 'third opinions' and without a clear policy argument against the change, the weight of support for 4 parties now must surely outweigh the one editor favouring 6 and the previous inconclusive Talk page discussion (see above). I'm going to change the infobox now to 4 parties. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, sorted! Much better. I just want to say no hard feelings against any other editors. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I just want to thank Bondegezou for acting as a fair mediator for this discussion and to all those that contributed. I also want to say that I am sorry for my part in any heated exchanges. I hope that there are no hard feelings! Nick Nick Dancer 16:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The old map was much, much clearer[edit]

The old map used to show who won seats in each region is so much clearer than the new shaded map. The shading makes it so much harder to see what is going on, and also to see how any seats there are in each region. I suggest we move back to the old map, it's so much clearer. That we use shaded maps for local government results is not an argument for doing so here, it's an argument for changing them. -- Cabalamat (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some way of using both? They both have things going for them. Bondegezou (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we used two maps, it would probably make the article look cluttered -- Cabalamat (talk) 19:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reformatted Opinion Poll table[edit]

Original Table - Inconsistent with that of other polling, inaccurate, undue weight to low polling parties

European Parliament Election – Opinion Polling
Firm/Client	Survey end date	Con	Labour	UKIP	Lib Dem	Green Parties*	BNP	SNP	Plaid Cymru	Others
YouGov/Daily Telegraph	3 June 2009	26%	16%	18%	15%	10%	5%	4% SNP + PC		6%
ComRes/Green Party of England and Wales	31 May 2009	24%	22%	17%	14%	15%	2%	3%	-	4%
YouGov/Daily Telegraph	29 May 2009	27%	17%	16%	15%	9%	7%	4% SNP + PC		6%
ICM/Sunday Telegraph	28 May 2009	29%	17%	10%	20%	11%	5%	5% SNP + PC		3%
Populus/Times	28 May 2009	30%	16%	19%	12%	10%	5%	2%	1%	4%
ICM/Guardian	21 May 2009	30%	24%	10%	18%	9%	1%	4% SNP + PC		3%
YouGov/Daily Telegraph	16 May 2009	28%	22%	15%	17%	7%	5%	4% SNP + PC		1%
BPIX/Mail on Sunday	16 May 2009	30%	17%	17%	15%	-	5%	-	-	-
ComRes/UKIP	14 May 2009	28%	23%	15%	14%	11%	4%	-	-	5%
YouGov/Sun	14 May 2009	29%	20%	15%	19%	6%	3%	4% SNP + PC		1%
Populus/Times	10 May 2009	34%	25%	6%	20%	5%	2%	4%	2%	1%
YouGov/Sunday Times	8 May 2009	36%	25%	7%	20%	4%	4%	4% SNP + PC		1%
ICM/TPA	4 May 2009	32%	28%	9%	22%	1%	1%	4%	2%	-
YouGov/TPA	8 January 2009	35%	29%	7%	15%	5%	4%	4% SNP + PC		2%
2004 Election		26.7%	22.6%	16.1%	14.9%	5.8%	4.9%	1.4%	1.0%	6%
2009 Election		27.7%	15.7%	16.5%	13.7%	9.1%	6.2%	2.1%	0.8%	7.9%

Note: there are two Green parties standing for election in Great Britain: the Green Party of England and Wales and the Scottish Green Party.

Newly Formatted Table - consistent with other polling layouts

Date(s) conducted	Polling organisation/client	Cons	Lab	UKIP	Lib Dem	<span	style="color:White;">Others]]
3 June 2009	YouGov/Daily Telegraph	26%	16%	18%	15%	25%	8% over UKIP
31 May 2009	ComRes/Green Party of England and Wales	24%	22%	17%	14%	24%	2% over Lab
29 May 2009	YouGov/Daily Telegraph	27%	17%	16%	15%	26%	10% over Lab
28 May 2009	ICM/Sunday Telegraph	29%	17%	10%	20%	24%	9% over Lab
28 May 2009	Populus/Times	30%	16%	19%	12%	22%	11% over UKIP
21 May 2009	ICM/Guardian	30%	24%	10%	18%	17%	6% over Lab
16 May 2009	YouGov/Daily Telegraph	28%	22%	15%	17%	17%	6% over Lab
16 May 2009	BPIX/Mail on Sunday	30%	17%	17%	15%	5%	13% over Lab & UKIP
14 May 2009	ComRes/UKIP	28%	23%	15%	14%	20%	5% over Lab
14 May 2009	YouGov/Sun	29%	20%	15%	19%	14%	9% over Lab
10 May 2009	Populus/Times	34%	25%	6%	20%	14%	9% over Lab
8 May 2009	YouGov/Sunday Times	36%	25%	7%	20%	13%	11% over Lab
4 May 2009	ICM/TPA	32%	28%	9%	22%	8%	4% over Lab
8 January 2009	YouGov/TPA	35%	29%	7%	15%	15%	6% over Lab
2004 Election		26.7%	22.6%	16.1%	14.9%	19.7%	4.1% over Lab
2009 Election		27.7%	15.7%	16.5%	13.7%	26.4%	11.2% over UKIP

I have reformatted the opinion poll table because it was completely inconsistent with the format of any other opinion polling table on Wikipedia. Also it does not work to group the Scottish Green Party and the Green Party of England and Wales as if it were one party in one column, this is statistically inaccurate, you can't simply add two percentages together from different parts of the country to give a national percentage, besides the fact they are not the same party. I am all to aware that merging the columns for the 2 Green parties, BNP, SNP and Plaid into the others column has made the Others % rather large in a number of the polls. The thing is, that is the nature of proportional representation, people are more willing to look at smaller parties. The point is that no individual party within the "Others" column has polled within the margin of error of the Lib Dems, there is a cliff edge effect, this is more apparent when we look at the results and seat allocation. While the others column seems to be over represented and has a high %, it is not due to any one party being to big to be included, it is due to many parties gaining moderately small percentages of around 3-7% each! This format is now consistent with that of Opinion polling for the United Kingdom general election, 2010 and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. It is also the format we will be using for opinion polling for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). The new format is more user friendly, tidier, colourful, statistically accurate and of course consistent with that used on other pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, it's about time this was done! I realize that both the Green Parties are under the same whip in the EP and are both part of the same federal party but that is reflected on the page for the overall European elections including all 27 member states. The 2 parties are registered separately with the electoral commission and were not officially on a joint ticket (just the same pan-EU party - not the same thing). I'm not concerned about the others column being too big, if it was one party or even 2 that didn't quite fit, I'd say give them a column but you rightly point out that it is many parties with small percentages! Very good work! Nick Nick Dancer 15:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

                                                       copied from top of page

For an election with 8 parties having members why reduce the polling down to just the top 4? This is less informative than the old layout. Why not accommodate the remaining parties into the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.200.19 (talk) 00:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the bottom of this talk page and you will find your answer there. It is explained in great detail under the heading "Reformatted Opinion Poll table". For future reference when opening a new section on the talk page, could you do it at the bottom of the page so that we have discussions kept in chronological order. Please do not respond in this section, go to the bottom of this talk page (section 21). Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thread resumed

I am in agreement with User:81.133.12.45 and Nick, this was the right thing to do. This page is now consistent with that of every other with opinion polls on it. Also if you look at the old table it was a complete mess: The way the SNP and Plaid had their results displayed was maddeningly unhelpful and quite messy. The Greens column was simply inaccurate, I mean 2 parties in one column? Also it effected the Maths, creating factual inaccuracies. Besides the fact that non of these parties achieved representation of national (UK wide) significance! By no stretch of the imagination is 2 seats in any way nationally significant!Furthermore on average (depending on your constituency) you need 9/10% to qualify for a seat, notice that the Greens and BNP only gained seats in constituencies that have more seats, therefore a lower percentage is required to qualify for seat allocation! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree -- see my comments on the Talk page for the 2014 election. We should show what the polls say, not editorialise. Bondegezou (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The cliff edge effect is very clear! I realize that these are different sort of election and we have discussed in great length the reasoning for this decision.

You give the example of the Italian Elections, you should know that their elections are very different to both the UK elections and the EU elections, this is not a suitable comparison. The reason it is necessary to include so many parties for the Italian elections is because they have parties of parties so to speak. For example most people in the UK seem to think that The People of Freedom are in coalition in the same sense that we have in the UK but in actual fact Italian parties organize themselves into formal blocks. It is the collective size of these blocks which is what makes the smaller parties that they comprise of relevant in polling. Currently there are 3 blocks, within those blocks there are parties that poll as low as 1% (sometimes lower then that), this has made it necessary to include all parties above that level of polling. The party system is completely different to ours, I can not believe you actually think this is a reasonable comparison!

Again with Israel, completely ludicrous comparison. The first point to make is that Israel has 2 different "peoples" and that they vote along religious lines, might I suggest one of the reasons for including all parties is in recognition of this, Israel is a predominantly Jewish state and therefore the Palestinians recieve less representation. I don't want to get too much into the politics of Israel, it's too easy to say something which could offend someone and I would really like to avoid that! The second point to make is that they are also a country that has multiple parties within Government, the point isn't as stark as it is with Italy but it's still pretty clear!

You are comparing these EU elections to elections that result in the formation of a government and and appointment of a Prime Minister, the EU elections don't! The EU Government is not elected, the European Parliament is merely a legislative chamber with the power to amend legislation! I don't want to go over all the reasoning again for only including the 4 main UK/EU parties and not those below the cliff edge but. Look at the mess of the SNP & PC column, polls that were published often published these results together, sometimes apart, that's messy and impractical for a table, also the percentages were very small and not of national significance. The Green Parties had a similar problem, 2 parties in 1 column, the BNP also polled barely enough to gain 2 seats nationally.

Also if you look at the member parties of The Greens–European Free Alliance, they only achieved 5 seats between them. So even if you try to use their grouping to justify their presence it doesn't stack up because the Lib dems came 4th achieving 11 seats all by them selves. Remember for the purposes of within the UK (i.e. party registration, voting, domestic opinion polling companies registered with the British Polling Council) these parties are all separate, individual parties, it is only at European level (after they have been elected) that their grouping becomes significant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP's comments! We have got treat this election on it's own merrits and this is what we have done in this debate throughout. The only thing that we have drawn upon from other pages is the formatting/appearance of the table. The old table on the 2009 page was not the right sort of appearance.

If we were doing the polls for European Grouping (which were not) I could see the argument for having a column combining SNP, Plaid and both Green Parties all into one column but that is not the case! Even in the Italian example we don't just group individual parties together within one column as if they were one party such as was done with the Greens in the past. They separated the individual parties polling out within the party block. Also grouping SNP and Plaid together is more than clutching at straws for national significance. Non of the 2Greens, BNP, SNP or Plaid as individual parties achieved poll ratings of national significance in the last election campaign, nor did any of them in their own right win a significant number of seats. The cliff edge effect is clear no matter which way you try and look at it! Sheffno1gunner (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I am in agreement with (the IP user) and Sheffno1gunner, their arguments are sound. Other articles are helpful some times but it is always important to look at an article on its own merits and not try and draw parallels between completely different situations! Also if you go to the top of this section and look at the 2 tables and then think about it the visual appearance and the practicalities of it all I fail to see how the original is favorable! Importantly the 2nd one is more concise (takes up less space) and is much clearer! Also if polling companies don't always bother to collect individual figures for political parties, I fail to see how we can be expected to try! I hope that, that is an end to it, there is rather a lot of detail in the argument above, it be a shame if we went round in circles raking over old coals! Nick Nick Dancer 23:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion Polling Chart[edit]

Is anyone good with making graphs? We could do with a graph for the opinion polls, there aren't that many so it shouldn't take too long. You'd need to include a line each for the 4main parties. Using the data from the table on the main page, be sure to include the 2004 result at the beginning and the 2009 result at the end. Ideally it would be good if you could create the same type of graph as were using for the next general election. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hope someone can help, thanks. Nick Nick Dancer 07:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be in favour of a graph as described, using the same format/design as the example Nick has given. One suggested change though, the key at the bottom should not use unnecessary abbreviations. The names in the key should appear as: Conservative, UKIP, Labour, Lib Dem. There is space for them, they will fit! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Here's your chart, it's a bit basic but you wouldn't expect it to look fantastic with only 16 polls under taken. Hopefully the pollsters will make a better effort at it for 2014 and we can have a better Graph. I have uploaded it onto commons and placed it on the page. Sheffno1gunner (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's better then nothing though! I didn't even consider the lack of data affecting it's appearance! Come to think about it had you used a more complicated/sophisticated graph then it would look pretty bad. This looks decent enough and is the best we're going to get. Good work! 81.133.12.45 (talk) 11:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Farage Image[edit]

There is talk on other pages of changing Nigel Farage's image. I just want to make sure that it does not extend to this page! The current image on this page is from 2008, any new images that are currently being talked about are from 2012 onwards. Since this page and election are from 2009 it is not apropriate to change the image. Thankyou.Sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). 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://www.webcitation.org/5hNJUnxxO to http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=16340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). 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:

Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/5gsWfOmKo?url=http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Euro-MP-to-stand-down.5250407.jp with https://web.archive.org/web/20090514014121/http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Euro-MP-to-stand-down.5250407.jp on http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/newshome/Euro-MP-to-stand-down.5250407.jp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chronicle.gi/headlines_details.php?id=16340

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BNP vote[edit]

Is it 6,0 or 6,2 according to BBC it is 6,2 93.106.155.178 (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]