Talk:1992 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Untitled
Re the recently added paragraph about it being the Sun wot won it - was there not some polls/analysis afterwards that proved sufficiently many people had been persauded by their powerful headline to alter the result? I remember reading it in a book - but can't remember which book! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No Northern Ireland?
Why is Northern Ireland as part of the UK not on the map shown? Had it not a number seats in Westminster?

No Tag

Labour's Healthcare Ad
From memory (I was only 10 at the time) Labour ran a TV advert for this election, claiming that Conservative policy was causing a two-tier health system. It featured two children with the same illness, one from a wealthy family and one not-wealthy, and ended with one sleepign happily and the other crying in pain, with the slogon 'Don't let it end in tiers'. I'm surprised this doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia--MartinUK (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fraud --> Electoral Reform
Changed the section on the alledged fraud and "granny farming" to a more general case regarding calls for electoral reform. Examples of all political parties seeking to maximise their vote by hook or by crook are numerous and this article implied that a. only the Tories do it and b. it won the Tories the 1992 General Election, both of which are at worst untrue or at the very least disengenious, shallow and misleading.

Thatcher resignation
I changed the sentence Margaret Thatcher had been forced out of office to ...had resigned as Prime Minister. Thatcher never lost the election for the leadership of the Conservative Party, she resigned, so I think this wording is more accurate. I also think that forced out does not present a neutral point of view. Alun 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
I have removed the comment that Major was 'poorly regarded by some' - (implictly) well regarded by others then. Have also removed the comment that Lamont's budget was considered populist by some: again bias POV and redundant. Lest we forget: 'All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.'(KRC58)


 * A neutral point of view means all points of view should be included (as long as they are verified from good sources), and that respective points of view must be presented in a neutral way, so as not to imply that one or another POV is correct. But your point is valid, every politician is poorly regarded by some. By the way please sign your posts on talk pages so people can identify you, you can do it with four tildes (~). Alun 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The effect of the Poll Tax on voter registration.
I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the Conservatives defied the polls and won the election was because that one way to avoid paying the Poll Tax involved unregistering oneself from the electoral register. The Poll Tax was so unpopular that there was a mass campaign of non-payment, and those involved were more likely to vote against the Conservatives than for them. This meant that people who refued to pay the poll tax were'nt on the electoral register and were denied the vote in the 1992 election, and the pollsters did not take this into account. Is there any substance behind this theory (preferably in the form or references and external links)? Ae-a 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * An ICM opinion poll of March 1992 asked "Are you registered to vote in the forthcoming general election?", with the answers being 92% Yes, 3% No, and 5% Don't know. I'm not sure how accurate that is.--Johnbull 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no evidence that large numbers of adults were not on the register. If someone has any, please post it

Exile (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Neil kinnock.jpg
Image:Neil kinnock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Number of votes
The article says, just under the results table, that the total votes cast was 33,514,074. However, if you add up all the votes in the results table, they come to 33,592,675 which is 78,601 more than the figure given below the table. In addition to that, a note states that the table doesn't include any parties that got less than 500 votes, so presumably were even more votes cast. Does anyone know why there is this discrepency?--86.180.145.55 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well spotted! It was a typo, the total was meant to be 33,614,074. I've corrected this and also a few other party votes based on the ref that I added. Cheers, Zangar (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the percentages given for the smaller parties are inaccurately rounded. Independent Conservatives down to the Workers' Party have been listed as 0.1%, when they are in fact 0.01%

Link
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/exclusive-how-did-labour-lose-in-92-the-most-authoritative-study-of-the-last-general-election-is-published-tomorrow-here-its-authors-present-their-conclusions-and-explode-the-myths-about-the-greatest-upset-since-1945-1439286.html

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United Kingdom general election, 1992. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204085549/http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/uknews/1428647/Swinney-should-stop-his-sneering-at-'second-best'.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1428647/Swinney-should-stop-his-sneering-at-'second-best'.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * John Major Kendall.tif

SDP vote total in the results section
I could be wrong, but it looks like the SDP total vote number includes the votes won by the defeated incumbent MPs Rosie Barnes in Greenwich and John Cartwright in Woolwich. If this is the case then it is misleading as the official SDP of 1992 was the third incarnation of the party, which neither was formally associated with. Both, like David Owen had left Social Democratic Party (UK)|the original SDP]] when it decided to join with the Liberal Party to form what became the Liberal Democrats, and instead formed a new SDP. However when that party failed in 1990 they sat as Independent Social Democrats and this is the label they used in 1992,. While the new SDP did not oppose them, it should also be noted that they were not opposed by the Liberal Democrats who indeed lent them some support, so this in itself does not mean that they should be counted as SDP. Dunarc (talk) 23:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the lack of Lib Dem candidates was a hangover from a local pact negotiated between the SaLaDs/Lib Dems and Owenite SDP to not oppose Cartwright and Barnes in exchange for not standing against Simon Hughes in Southwark and Bermondsey. 1992 was before formal candidate registration so it's possible not all the "SDP" candidates were cut from the same cloth. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)