Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2

Colours
On the 2005 Results map the LibDems are in yellow and the Nationalists in orange, whereas everywhere else in the article its the LibDems in orange. The map could also do with a colour-key.195.128.250.41 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. Particularly as elsewhere on the article the colour for the LibDems is orange, while the SNP is yellow! Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the colours were out of order.--86.29.247.234 02:36, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Constituencies_in_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
A heads up really to keep on top of articles like this one in the run up to what could be a snap election next year. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Black District lines not showing up against blue
While the district lines are showing up well against the Labour and Liberal Democrats, it's exteremly faint in the Conservative areas. It looks to me like if a lighter shade of gray was chosen, they would show up better in the Conservative section while still remaining visible in the Labour & Liberal Democrat sections. Jon 16:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Targets
I think there's something fishy about the list of targets for the next election. Several for the LDs, for example, are seats they already hold (like Solihull). Will they list as targets seats they're defending? Otherwise the list is wrong. Wally 21:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they don't hold Solihull according to the calculations that take into account the boundary changes that are due to come into force at the next general election. If the LDs win in Solihull, it'll be classed as a LD gain, rather than LD hold. Similarly, if the conservatives win in Solihull, it'll be CON hold. Richard B 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, what about Grantham and Stamford? It's currently held by a Labour MP, but the Conservatives can afford a swing against them of 15% and still gain the seat. Richard B 23:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

that gets treated as being a tory hold (assuming that they do) as they had it at the 2005 election, the same for any by-election changes (so when sarah teather held brent east in 2005 it went down as libdem gain from lab as labour won it in 2001


 * Indeed. In 2005 absolutely nobody seriously talked about Basingstoke as being a Conservative gain from the Democratic Unionist Party! Timrollpickering 11:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

on another note, would a green targets list be includable?Joevsimp 12:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Darrenhusted 13:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

why not?Joevsimp 14:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC) edit ok, fair enough, i had another look thru the results and brighton pavillion is the only realistic one, kemptown, hove and norwich south are miles behindJoevsimp 10:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The targets for particular parties depends on which seats they think will be most likely to be fall during the campaign, and even then what is being referred to is targeted gains because naturally parties target seats they already hold in order to hold onto them. Seats with much larger majorities for other parties could be seen as being prime targets - take Bethnal Green and Bow, Wyre Forest or Blaenau Gwent for example - Labour no doubt will see all these as prime targets because they are seats that until quite recently were safe Labour and have been taken in very localised campaigns by small parties - small parties can find it difficult to sustain good performances locally over a long time and if they collapse then the party that once held them many of whose former supporters switched to elect the new MP is in a strong position to recapture them.

Poplar and Limehouse may appear to be a safe Labour seat but with George Galloway standing for Respect it could easily be seen as a target not only for Respect, but also for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats because of the split in the Labour vote.

Really these are marginals not necessarily targets, because a party might feel for some reason that a marginal was unwinnable for them despite the statistics, a target on the other hand is whatever the party decides to aim it's resources heavily into to win and the top ten targets again are what they decide are the top ten targets. Political parties don't simply pick lists of targets based on the previous election result, they use a whole range of factors.--Lord of the Isles 10:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment only one of the three Green Party target seats is listed. The others are Norwich South and Lewisham Dept. By swing these probably look like long shots (and maybe they are) but at local elections, etc they have continued to poll higher in these areas (in Norwich S. they got more votes in the constituency than labour at the last *locals*) and are therefore targetting them seriously. I think it's worth adding these to the Green target seats, if people don't object. 82.21.102.176 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Unless a party chooses to announce its target list to the media, something rare (although not unheard of - e.g. last time's Lib Dem "decapitation strategy" of targeting Conservative frontbenchers) because it tips off other parties, the seats that the media, commentators etc... talk of as top "targets" are based on the uniform swing. Yes local organisations and high profile other candidates can alter things on the ground but these are very hard to objectively assess from afar. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Opinion polls, and analysis of votes in relation to numbers of seats
In this section it states 'Normally governments can easily survive for a full parliamentary term on a majority of more than 20 seats over all other parties'. I am not confident about this - where did we get the figure of 20 from as it sounds like original research. An example is the 1992 election where there was an overall majority of 21 but the government struggled to govern on that majority for a full term. I think that this needs rewriting as it is a very dubious statement. Davewild 08:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how dosile the operition is rather than the number of seats held, welks!--86.29.247.234 03:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

There were special circumstances in the 1992-97 parliament. There were eight Conservative seats lost to by-elections during the parliament, eight MP's had the government whip removed from them over a dispute about signing the Maastricht Treaty and four MP's defected to other parties. John Major also had to endure a leadership challenge and an election mid-term with over a quarter of his parliamentary party voting for John Redwood. I'm not sure if the figure of 20 has any value in the article, but the 1992-97 parliament had anything BUT a stable administration! Esquimo 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

My point is that it is an arbitary figure without any sources to back it up and am just using the 1992 election as an example to show the figure is not always true. Davewild 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

more speculation
a quick heads-up, this week the Labour party sent a mailshot to its members asking for donations (recommended £15) for the election, campaign. as i've only been an LP member since may (for the leadership election) i dont know if/when these usually get sent in relation to when the next election will be, but if anyone else does then be aware this has happenned Joevsimp 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it's anything like the Liberal Democrats you'll be receiving about one of those a month for the rest of your natural life! Possibly Labour don't need to hit up their memebers for cash quite so often as they are still mostly bankrolled by trade-unions but I'd imagine it's still a fairly regular occurance. I'm led to believe that Labour have told their local parties to have candidates in place by christmas so presumably they'll be READY to fight an election next spring, but that isn't to say that's when it will actually be. Esquimo 00:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Images of party leaders
Is it really neccessary for there to be two sets of photos of the main 3 party leaders?

Also when I last came on this article a few months ago there was a useful graph showing the different amount of support the main parties have/had since the 2005 election, what happened to that? --Mas 18 dl 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid we have a banned user who likes the photos along the side and keeps re-adding them. As he's now using a dynamic IP theres nothing really we can do about it. Galloglass 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of them looking at Cameron in the infobox? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.3.34 (talk) 06:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox out of hand
If every opinion poll from now to the end of the General Election is added to the InfoBox at the top, it will get ludicrously long by the end of the campaign - even if the election turned out to be on 25 October 2007, if it went to 2009 or 2010 it would end up amounting to more than half the length of the article. Surely if opinion polls are to be included then given that this is an article about the next General Election, not about everything in this parliament up to and including the parliament then surely at the very least they should be limited to ones at the start of the actual month of the election being called and up until the election day itself and Exit Poll!--Lord of the Isles 17:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Advance planning - "Post-Election Edit War Syndrome"
Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies for a discussion that's aiming to get agreement in advance about how to avoid some of the post election edit wars that have raged after other country's elections. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Seats Needed based upon boundary calculations
I have updated the seats needed section of the infobox in accordance with [Boundary Changes|http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk]. 90.209.222.82 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)RAHOWELL90.209.222.82 (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Page name
Zenon2009 (talk · contribs) has moved the existing Next United Kingdom general election article to 2009 or 2010 United Kingdom general election article without discussion. Personally I feel the new name is inferior to the old one. Until the election occurs it will be the "Next" general election - at that time the article can be renamed to the correct year. Having a guess in the article name does not seem particularly professional. Is there any support for either the new or old names? Road Wizard (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Move back! Happy138 (talk) 19:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I moved it back as the new title was actually less accurate. There's an outside chance the next election could delayed beyond 2010. Additionally, the new title, as stated above, sounds messier and is generally less professional. If there is a policy that dictates the name as it stands should be changed, I'll happily stand corrected. Scrxisi (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been through this before, and I agree that "Next United Kingdom general election" is far better FOR NOW than any other. Unlike most other countries, as we are no doubt aware, the UK does not have fixed date elections, so a date in the article is not accurate until we actually now. Thanks for moving it back. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Present title with "next" -- In theory, a title with "next" in it is a hostage to fortune, as it will certainly become obsolete when the election has takne place.  However, an artic;le like this will certainly be edited many times are the election approaches, and will presumably be moved to include the date when the election is called.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, Zenon2009, there HAS been a discussion regarding the title, see number 9 in the contents listing! For the moment the title "next..." is best, I believe. --89.55.194.128 (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wanting to check I counted the dates correctly, in which case, less then 5 weeks before the title change. 78.32.249.98 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Now we're reaching a point where it's becoming more and more certain that the election won't be held in 2009. I've taken a look on the Dissolution of the Parliament of the United Kingdom page, which says that an election must be held no less then 18 days after parliament has been disbanded. By my count, this means that the latest date that it could be disbanded 7 December. From this point it becomes verifiable that the election will be held during 2010, which would allow us to change the title of the page on 8 December (as per WP:V), despite the fact it's been common knowledge for quite some time.
 * That's not right. The election must occur 17 days after the new parliament is summoned, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and Bank Holidays. As such, the date we change the article needs to be the date after which only 16 qualifying days follow. By my count, that means that means 7 December is day we should change it. There are 24 days after the 7th, but after excluding the three Saturdays, three Sundays, and two Bank Holidays for Christmas and Boxing Day there are only 16 (24 – 8 = 16). Since it is easy for math errors to creep in, the last 17 qualifying days of 2009 are listed below:


 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 14
 * 15
 * 16
 * 17
 * 18
 * 21
 * 22
 * 23
 * 24
 * 29
 * 30
 * 31
 * Since a proclamation issuing on 6 December (or 4 or 5 December, for that matter) would result in a 31 December 2009 election, 7 December (which results in a 2 January election) should be the date of the change. -Rrius (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to check, boxing day occurs on a Saturday this year, and the day you removed from the day above was the 28th not the 26th. Does this still count as a Bank Holiday (as a substitute for booxing day), or not? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it will be better to simply leave the name of this page at the present title, which is undoubtedly accurate, rather than switch to any specific year, even if we can work out that the election 'must' be held in that year. Why? Well, a couple of reasons; i) We wouldn't want to imply that the election had actually been called, or that dating the election to 2010 was in any way official. ii) There is a chance, admitted as small as it might be, that the election might be delayed beyond 2010. I know the last time this has happened was in the world wars, but as I understand it, there is nothing to actually stop the government attempting to extend it's own life-span. iii) It is perhaps more likely that there may be more than a single general election in 2010, for instance if the first results in a hung parliament, which would require us to change the title once again to 'June 2010', or similar. So, to be honest, all this speculation seems somewhat like a waste of intellectual effort, as interesting as it may be. --Neil (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The 28th is indeed the bank holiday for Boxing Day this year because the holiday itself actually falls on the weekend. To your other points, it is the normal practice to use the "election, [year]" format once the year is known (I can specifically refer you to Japanese general election, 2009, which changed from "Next" in December 2008). As I understand it, the practice has been to ignore the marginal chance of a parliament extending its life; in that unlikely event, we would of course be free to move it back. The last point gets a bit silly because if we need to disambiguate different 2010 general elections, we will, but your idea would pretty much require leaving it here until the election is called; naming it "Current United Kingdom general election" from the day it is called until polling day; and then "Last United Kingdom general election" from poll closing until December 2010 if there were a hung parliament. -Rrius (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple elections is a red herring - that will require a rename anyway, since we can't reliably foresee the need for a second election until after a first one. I would suggest moving now, since election campaigns tend to run for many weeks, and IIRC there is usually some advance notice before Parliament is dissolved.  Practically, there can't be an election before January.  The possibility of delay hasn't stopped the rename happening in other cases, and it would take something extreme to cause a delay.  Of course, counter to this, we have around a hundred lame duck MPs who have decided to jump before they're pushed not contest the next election, and may happily join the Government in such a motion to maintain their expense claims careers that little bit longer.  :-)  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While it is certainly unlikely, Gordon Brown could decide Labour's financial woes are so dire that it cannot endure a longer campaign, and announce an election this year. Observing the electoral calendar seems more appropriate than just saying we're pretty sure, so why not? -Rrius (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That seems like wild speculation to me. If such a thing was remotely possible, we'd already know - things like that don't happen at short notice and don't stay secret for long. If there were to be an election in December, it would already be public knowledge, or at the very least an open secret.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why all the rush to change the name? Is it worth debating whether the name should be changed now (when we are reasonably confident of the election year) or in less than a month (when we will be certain of the election year as defined under current election law)? It seems rather pointless, especially as the current article name is accurate.
 * Unless you have an extremely strong argument why we cannot wait 27 days then my recommendation is to wait till December. Road Wizard (talk) 08:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. And for the record, that was not "wild speculation"; it was an example of the potential, if unlikely, scenarios that would lead to an election this year. Finally, wikipedia doesn't make editorial decision on the basis of "gee, we'd know about that" or "well, no one could keep that secret". Also, in point of fact, I just saw an article about the election being called early because of Labour's finances. So, under your test, we'd know. Dear me, looks like I've wasted time debating this again. Oh well. -Rrius (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Date section
No, for once this isn't quibbling about what we should say the date will be :-)

About half of the (lengthy) lead section was a discussion of what date the election would be; I've condensed it into a paragraph, and moved the discussion to its own section. It could probably do with something of an overhaul now it's sitting there, if anyone's interested... Shimgray | talk | 17:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Target error
The article lists Croyden Central as Labour-held Tory target, but it is held by a Conservative. Am I missing something or is it wrong? -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the Croydon Central article, the boundary changes are enough to make it a nominal Labour-held seat next time. Andrew Pelling only won by 75 votes last time. — sjorford++ 20:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Hung Parliament
If there was a hung parliament and no party had a majority over 326 – and none of the parties wanted to team up - would the largest party (the one closest to 326) be allowed to form a minority government? Thanks in advance. 81.111.221.11 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe that technically that would be up to the queen to decide; in practice she would take advice from the privvy council and if the largest party had enough seats and enough policies that other parties would\could support (even without forming a formal cooalition) then they would probably be able to form a minority government, at least until their first budget. If they failed to pass a budget, then they would probably have to call another general election (Disclaimer: this is all off the top of my head, I'm not a constitutional expert).VJ (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer: probably.
 * In Feb 1974, there was an election producing a hung parliament. The Conservatives had won the most votes but Labour had won more seats. The Conservative incumbent Prime Minister, Edward Heath, was unable to reach an accommodation with other parties to support his government. That is, they would not promise to vote in favour of the Queen's speech when it was given; and if this speech was defeated that would mean parliament had to be dissolved and a new election called. Heath decided not to let that happen, and called an election, which he lost.
 * As long as a majority of parliament votes for the queen's speech at the beginning of each session, and as the government wins any votes of confidence put forward by an MP, that government can legally remain in power. However, they might be destroyed by important laws not getting passed. BillMasen (talk) 19:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Queen will seek to avoid making a controversial public decision at all costs and also will want to avoid a fast turnover of governments. She will probably ask the incumbent PM to stay in office for the interim as a caretaker until it's clear who can assemble a government and ask the main and minor party leaders to try and work something out between themselves. If either a coalition or confidence&supply arrangement that commands a majority emerges then she'll appoint that, otherwise she will take private advice from elder statesmen, Commonwealth Governor Generals past & present (some of whom have actually had to deal with this scenario) constitutional experts and the like as to what to do. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Targets and notional winners
A few questions:

-Rrius (talk) 12:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Why are notional winning parties listed rather than actual winning parties with a note that boundary changes notionally change the winner?
 * 2) Who determined the notional winners? I.e., what is the source?
 * 3) Since no one knows exactly where in a constituency each party's 2005 voters lived, how do we know the swing to gain from a notional loss? That is to say, where a Tory holds a seat, but it has been determined that it is notionally Labour, how is the swing necessary to win the seat calculated?


 * In general terms, you can calculate how a constituency is "notionally" made up in three ways:
 * a) Assume all the population in a constituency votes the same way, model the new constituency as, eg/ "50% from a mostly Labour-voting seat, 30% from a mostly Conservative-voting seat, 20% from a tossup marginal", and generate a predicted vote from that.
 * b) Make various demographic assumptions along the lines of "well, the transferred area is mostly retired affluent, they're probably going to vote X", and modify the previous results via this
 * c) interpret the constituency as made up of lots of small areas, which correspond to council-election wards, and compare the historical voting data in those to the constituency as a whole.
 * As for where precisely the data in this article comes from, open question! The last paragraph of "Boundary changes" suggests c), but it doesn't source the study. The map given does, however - it's apparently drawn from this site, which discusses its methodology at some length. Shimgray | talk | 17:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That somewhat answers question 2, but what about the others? -Rrius (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting page at the UK Polling Report which discusses the nature of different predictions for the 'notional' winners. I'd assume that we are using the 'Rallings & Thrasher' figures, which apparently 'will be used by the mainstream media for all their election coverage and are regarded as the “official” figures'. As to your questions:
 * 1) Listing the current winner with a note may be fine where the boundaries of a constituency have just suffered a minor alteration, however what about if we are talking about a new creation, or where a very large proportion of the land or population in a region has changed seats? (e.g. Arundel & South Downs) The notional winner is really the only sensible and consistent figure to use.
 * 2) As I've said I believe we are using the Rallings & Thrasher figures - looking at Finchley and Golder's Green we have it as a Labour target and the other two main predictions have it as being a Labour hold.
 * 3) Predictions for votes of the Rallings & Thrasher study are given on the Press Association page - I'd imagine it would be sensible to use these as a basis for swings, etc.

--Neil (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please remove 'Solihull' from the list of Lib Dem targets. Solihull has been under the control of the Lib Dems since 2005 when Lorely Burt won marginally. If Anything it should be a Tory target. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.234.24 (talk) 21:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been boundary changes since the 2005 GE which have made it a notionally Tory seat, hence it would be a gain if the LibDems win it at the next GE. Hope this explains things, cheers - Gallo glass  07:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Quentin Davies retiring?
The source does not indicate he is retiring. It simply said that he will not contest in the same constituency again. He might ended up being parachuted into safe Labour seat, just like Shaun Woodward w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 20:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Marginal Seats
Why is Dundee West down as an SNP target from a "marginal" Labour seat when the required swing is 7.28?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.178.216 (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Possibly because the figures make that the second smallest majority the SNP has to overturn. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know
This election isn't on-going. It hasn't even been called yet, therefore I am removing the ongoing bar. 81.79.107.43 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The ongoing bar just means it hasn't taken place yet. By removing it the features of a completed election are put into the infobox. --Philip Stevens (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've noted several change and revert between "yes" and "no". If you noticed the difference, when the ongoing set to "no", you'll see that labour is positioned as "First Party"/Majority Party, Conservative as "Second Party"/Minority Party, etc. I think we should create a talk in the template to change "ongoing" with something else that does not confuse editors. I was once myself confused. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Setting the infobox to "ongoing" for technical reasons is fine, but the "future election" box at the top is hideous - as the infobox issue doesn't seem to depend on this banner, I've removed it. It's self-evident that this is a moderately provisional article about an event in the future; it's not about something currently ongoing or which is likely to change tomorrow, and I don't think our readers really need such a prominent warning of the obvious. I'd strongly recommend we don't add it back until a date is announced. Shimgray | talk | 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

6 May 2010
Hello, I have a 'reliable source' that the General Elections will be on 6 May 2010 on the same day as the council elections.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gAUX-Mx6sdbgysvn6y0LQzEUPZ1g

(86.170.162.197 (talk) 09:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC))


 * "Most likely", perhaps, but not yet firm enough to change the article. --Cavrdg (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Politicians, even leading ones, give such hints all the time and the party machines are regularly on various stages of alert. It's not an official announcement in the slightest. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned it in passing in the section on the date; whilst it's still speculation, it's reasonable speculation that's been made in a few places, and as long as we present it as such it seems to be useful to give to the reader. Shimgray | talk | 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Barring of Ian Gibson
I see there is a dispute over whether to mention that Ian Gibson was also barred from standing as Labour candidate in the next election. I think it should be mentioned and would like to explain why. First, Wikipedia is not news. When the decision was taken by the NEC panel, it was relevant to the next general election because Ian Gibson was intending to stand. His decision to resign after the panel decision subsequently removed him from the field, but the panel decision itself still stands. Seecond, there is some pressure within the Labour Party, in the light of the byelection result, for the NEC panel decision to be overturned and for Gibson to be reselected. Third, most of the sources for the NEC panel's decision include the Gibson decision and to say that 'four Labour MPs were barred' when the sources say 'five Labour MPs were barred' means that it is worth explaining how the discrepancy might come. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because of the claim that five were barred. The claim should be weaved in better, however, and I shall attempt to do so. -Rrius (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If, by January 1, there's no news no the election...
Will this page be renamed United Kingdom general election, 2010? Smurfy 19:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. It is theoretically possible (allbeit unlikely) that a change in the law would result in the election being delayed beyond 2010; although I believe the only times this has happened in the recent past are during the two world wars. --Neil (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ex-cabinet minister Des Browne to stand down as MP in order to stand for Scottish Parliament?
--Mais oui! (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://news.scotsman.com/entertainment/Browne-looks-for-Holyrood-move.5642375.jp

Jacqui Lait MP set to retire
--Mais oui! (talk) 10:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * http://conservativehome.blogs.com/goldlist/2009/09/jacqui-lait-mp-set-to-retire.html

ukip
Should the ukip be added as one of the main partys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.204.65 (talk) 20:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that they currently hold no seats, I should think not. -Rrius (talk) 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. UKIP made a strong showing in the most recent elections, but we shouldn't leap to conclusions from this - they took 16% of the vote in the 2004 European elections as well, and that only translated to 2% of the general-election vote the following year. Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to know why the BNP have not even been mentioned when parties like RESPECT (who no one has even heard of) have. Considering all the controversy in the papers. I don't care about the controversy, Wiki is not supposed to be biased and they are clearly a rising party. http://www.general-election-2010.co.uk/who-will-you-vote-for-in-the-2010-general-election-poll.html People can cry racism all they want, but truth is the BNP are a political party. Scottish National Party are accepted so why not BNP? They have seats in European parliament if it means anything and after Question Time their popularity grew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.178.118 (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Jury Team?
I removed the following sentence: " The Jury Team, launched in March 2009, intends to increase the number of Independent politicians in the House of Commons by backing suitable candidates in the election." from the opening paragraph as I'm not sure how appropriate it was for the opening. It could perhaps be placed elsewhere - any thoughts? Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 23:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence is already summarising a paragraph in the main article, it is perfectly fine per wp:lede. MickMacNee (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Election date
This article and several other sources, including the electoral commission, say the last possible date for an election is June 3. This article also says that the earliest a proclamation summoning a new parliament could issue would be May 11, 2010. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. Schedule 1, §2(1)(a). In 2005, the proclamation issueed on April 11, 2005, and the election was held on May 5. That's 24 days, 17 plus 7 (3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 1 bank holiday).

In 2010, there is a bank holiday on May 31. Therefore, if the proclamation is issued on May 11, the election must be held June 4 (17 days plus 7; 3 Saturdays, 3 Sundays, and the May 31 bank holiday). Thus, either the June 3 date is wrong, or the proclamation can issue on the last day of the current Parliament. Which is it? -Rrius (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This House of Commons Research Paper confirms that June 3 is calculated from a proclamation on May 10, and that a proclamation on May 11 would result in a June 4 election. -Rrius (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparent inconsistency on effect of new boundaries
The analysis of Rallings and Thrasher reported in the main article says that any swing to Labour would result in an increased Labour majority. However, in the "boundary changes" section of the article it is reported that, if votes were cast identically to 2005 (i.e. a zero swing), the Labour majority would go down from 66 to 44. One of these claims must be wrong! Grover cleveland (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. I think that the first table dates from before the boundary changes, and therefore was based upon a uniform swing on the pre-established boundaries. It does need correcting (and weirdly I was experiencing deja vu while writing this). --Neil (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

MPs standing down
There's currently comfortably over a hundred MPs who've announced they're not running in the upcoming election; chances are we'll continue to see a good few more announced. We don't seem to have a comparable list for previous elections.

Would it be worth splitting this out into a separate list (or merging it with the current list of MPs, as a note in that table) and having a section in this article saying something about the 2008-9 expenses scandal, and that [some large number] of MPs have chosen not to seek re-election, a list is [somewhere else]?

As it stands, this list takes up a remarkable proportion of the article, but the simple numbers are probably all we need for an overview. Shimgray | talk | 12:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A list of MPs planning to stand down is something that is only really relevant in the run-up to an election: as an encyclopaedic documentation of the election its not really necessary. The info as it stands is not really necessary for this article: the articles of constituencies and on the MPs themselves should indicate who has stood for election, who has stood down, etc. I suggest a table by party might be of use and would be of permanent interest. --Pretty Green (talk) 13:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mmm - if you want to know about an individual, you'll look at the article for them or for the constituency. If we have an overall table, it'd be useful to have some comparative figures - do we know how many people stood down in previous elections? Shimgray | talk | 13:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There may be references to specific numbers of MPs in reference books. I agree that the vast number of MPs standing down this time is a special case that may need a separate article eventually (imagine when this article is renamed as the UK general election 2010 with results tables and additional information!). doktorb wordsdeeds 14:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wouldn't bother. There is an article on the expenses scandle etc. I imagine that the 1945 United Kingdom general election also had a lot of people stand down. A table with numbers per party is the best approach I think. --Pretty Green (talk) 09:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the list should stand, but I don't care whether it is retained in the article or forked to a subarticle. It would be nice if we could get some kind of comparison, but as it is this is a notable part of the story of the election, and the list helps tell that story in a way that simply stating the numbers doesn't. At the same time, the list isn't so long that it overwhelms the article or gives undue weight to the issue. -Rrius (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's ugly, smacks of recentism and will add to the length of the page once the full election material trickles in. Just because something exists doesn't mean that we have to include it. I personally don't see how it strays beyond trivia? --Pretty Green (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Currently, our elections are on Thursdays. The clock has run out on an election on 17 December. The following Thursday is Christmas Eve, so no election then. The presence of Christmas also effectively bars an election on New Year's Eve. This means that by the time this move request closes, the election cannot happen in 2009. The possibility of the election being postponed is speculation, and there would be nothing preventing us from moving it back should that happen. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Contributors should assume that this RM runs its full course into December, since any announcement of an election during this time will overrule this discussion. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

held in 2010. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Premature to say the least. Its not just a question of date but of how all forthcoming election pages are set up. Lets keep to the normal conventions please.  -  Gallo glass  23:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Thursday elections are tradition, not law. There is no good reason to jump the gun. We know the day it becomes impossible to have a 2009 election (7 December), so we should wait until then. Also, we just had this discussion, and consensus was to wait. -Rrius (talk) 23:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - for the obvious reasons given above. However, come back on 8 December and I'll probably Support. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 7 December is actually the first day it becomes impossible to have a 2009 election. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although I fully accept your reasoning, this is border line WP:CRYSTAL. With no formal written constitution, and no fixed term parliaments, it is highly likely but not yet fact that the next election will be
 * Oppose' We should change it come mid-December, but no sooner. By then it will be clear that under current law the election will be in 2010. See discussion for further comments --Pretty Green (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Clearly, a consensus has developed against the move proposed, and I do understand the reasoning behind the opposes above. I feel, though, that the chance of the election date being moved beyond 2010 due to exceptional circumstances is so slim as to discount it, and clearly no moves have been made towards a 2009 election.  Sounds like a 2010 election in my books.  However, as I said, I do understand the reasoning for the opposes, and clearly a consensus has swung that way.  Probably best to give a requested move another try later on, say by the middle of December as suggested by some.  HonouraryMix (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we'll need an RM; once 7 December rolls around, someone should just move it. While there is certainly no consensus to move now, there will certainly be then. I base that not only on the survey here, but also on the prior, related discussions (including the one that the IP editor who instigated this RM was a part of mere days before starting it). -Rrius (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of people failed to notice several things - that the discussion potentially will pass that date, that the survey is one of principle (the opinions "oppose move" and "move next week" are incongruous and contradictory), and that you are allowed to say something along the lines of "Support move, but not until next week". "Come back in six months" is understandable, "come back next week" is extreme pettifoggery.  This isn't a binary vote.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Clearly, most people do see that, as the "oppose" votes have predominately said, "wait until we reach the appropriate day in December". This RM is not the beginning or end of the discussion. It is pretty clear that we have a consensus to move on 7 December, therefore an admin would be justified in effecting the move on that date without waiting for further discussion. For you request that we move ASAP, there was no consensus in favour in the prior discussions or in this RM. If this RM is still open on 7 December, it will be closed on that date with the result "Move". If it has already closed, it will presumably be moved outside RM process because there are admins who are active here. Along those lines, will an admin confirm that one way or other we can have the move on 7 December? I've set out above why that is the appropriate date, and no one seems to disagree. -Rrius (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose until January 2010. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why note 7 December, when it becomes impossible to have a 2009 election under UK law. -Rrius (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Just in reaction to this proposal - how will people react in a few weeks time when it becomes clear that, barring exceptional events (ie parliamentary acts which extend the lifetime of Parliament, war, natural disaster, an invasion by dinosaurs-armed-with-lasers etc.) the election will be in 2010. Will people currently opposing accept a move then? It seems to me that any forthcoming election could be changed - the USA could enact an amendment to its constitution in order to move the date of the 2012 election, but it is so highly unlikely that we ignore it. I would suggest that the unlikeliness of this election not happening in 2010 is already pretty high, and if it hasn't been announced by mid-December, will be so high as to be ignorable. -Pretty Green (talk) 10:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * But what about the fact that, barring sharks with lasers on their heads, that this election can only be held before July 2010. That is hardly '2010', at least the current title would still be accurate after the new year. MickMacNee (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand that? Do you mean including the month in the title? That has never been done before (except where more than one election occurs in a year) and is not a standard for elections. --Pretty Green (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just pointing out that '2010' isn't as accurate as people might think, even if it is standard (standards which only experienced editors are going to know anyway). MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's as accurate as we have. Barring war and famine, the election must now happen between January and July 2010.  The clock has run out on an election before Christmas, and the practicalities of trying to stage an election on 30th (most significantly the loss of a week's campaigning time due to Christmas) make it as good as impossible.  81.111.114.131 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Page move, revisited

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page moved. Wereon (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In light of the comments made, the above discussion should not have been closed when it was. I am therefore bringing the issue back up for consideration. As of today, it is no longer possible for a 2009 election. Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, the election occurs 17 days after the proclamation summoning the next parliament issues, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and bank holidays. There are 24 days in December after the 7th, but after excluding the three Saturdays, three Sundays, and two bank holidays for Christmas and Boxing Day, there are only 16 (24 – 8 = 16). Since it is easy for math errors to creep in, the last 17 qualifying days of 2009 are listed below: Since the last day for an election to be called in 2009 was yesterday, 6 December, and an election called today would take place on 2 January 2010, the page should be moved to United Kingdom general election, 2010 as soon as possible. -Rrius (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 7
 * 8
 * 9
 * 10
 * 11
 * 14
 * 15
 * 16
 * 17
 * 18
 * 21
 * 22
 * 23
 * 24
 * 29
 * 30
 * 31


 * The current title is just as accurate as '2010' tbh. Either way, readers still have to read the first few lines to figure out the election has to occur before July. Unless the person who moves it undertakes to fix all the resulting redirects, this move would be pointless for the reader, and annoying to editors. MickMacNee (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the OP. And so...

Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 — Time has now run out for a 2009 election. --Wereon (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and MickMacNee, I'll start on fixing the links shortly. It's got to be done anyway... Wereon (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it should be moved as its very unlikey that theres gonna be an election within the next 2 or 3 weeks epspecally revolving around the christmas holiday and new year so yea election 2010 here we come :) Pro66 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlikely? It's illegal! See above. Wereon (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Suppprt Utterly pointless and uninformative (even potentially misleading given the June limit), but if someone is crazy enough to want to fix the resulting redirects after moving it, I guess it's fine with me. MickMacNee (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be the "next" one forever, can it? Sooner or later another one will come along, you know... And how do you mean "misleading"? Wereon (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support move to 2010 As Rrius very nicely explained, it's now impossible for an election in 2009. In theory, the election can be held after 2010 due to very exceptional circumstances, but the only time a British parliament's term has been extended beyond 5 years since the limit was legally imposed was during the two world wars, and I don't see Russia playing up anytime soon.  To all intents and purposes, the next general election will happen in 2010, and I believe the title should be adjusted to reflect that. HonouraryMix (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - no reason not to move it now. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Added note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. --h2g2bob (talk) 23:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Of course once it's happened someone will create another 'Next United Kingdom general election' article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we have a Next next United Kingdom general election article for the intervening few months? Shimgray | talk | 00:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support non-controversial move that needs no further discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support due to 5-year max between general elections. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for reasons stated above. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


 * Good Job. Next United Kingdom general election should be de-directed from this page after the polls open on election day. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if nobody bothers to fix the incoming links resulting from this move. MickMacNee (talk)
 * Give me chance already! Wereon (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since when do we hold a 4 hour discussion that over-turns a 7 day one. Something smells very odd here indeed. - Gallo glass  17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a 2009 GE is now impossible. Duh! Wereon (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Weron please don't display your ignorance as well as your bad manners. I suggest you re-read doktorb's contribution to the proper discussion above for the requisit enlightenment. - Gallo glass  20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Whilst keeping the discussion open for the full 7 days wouldn't have hurt, I think the closer felt support for the move was snowballing, hence he probably felt a consensus had already been reached. HonouraryMix (talk) 21:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when is it normal to close any discussion within minutes of the previous opposers being notified on their talk pages? -  Gallo glass  21:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Galloglass, you can't very well call me ignorant and bad-mannered if you consistently spell my username incorrectly. While I would of course welcome the good Doktor's own contribution, the difference between the two discussions - as I have already pointed out on my talk page - is that the deadline for a 2009 election has now passed. The chances of there not being an election next year are several million to one. Wereon (talk) 21:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The answer to Galloglass's question is probably that the closer took into account the prior RM and the discussions that had taken place before that. -Rrius (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed all mainspace links to "next general election" and changed them to the new page. -- Love, Smurfy 20:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was page was moved by User:Therequiembellishere, move-protected by User:tedder on Dec. 9 —  æk Talk 04:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2010 —
 * The next UK general election must take place on or before 3 June 2010. Under UK law there must be at least 17 working days before the calling of an election and Election Day. Therefore, as there are now fewer than 17 working days left in 2009 and no election has been called, the next election has to take place in 2010.  Philip Stevens (talk) 00:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. As above. And as already snowballed. Wereon (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Suppor. As again for above reasons. Pro66 (talk) 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Can support now that we are in December. --Labattblueboy (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support For the reasons I and others have stated in the two previous RMs and the discussions prior to that. It is silly that the move was undone. -Rrius (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Impossible in 2009. Could, in theory, be in 2011 or later, but the only time a British parliament's term has been extended since a term limit was legally imposed was during the two world wars; basically, a term extension can only be due to very exceptional circumstances, like a massive war, and the possibility of that is so slim as to discount the possibility.  So, 2010 election it is. HonouraryMix (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Ditto. Happy138 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support As above. I was coming to suggest this. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy move, I think WP:SNOWBALL should be invoked as no one seems to oppose this move and it would take a change in the law for the next election to take place in any year other than 2010. Hera1187 (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Done This discussion hasn't had any opposition since Rrius started it on the seventh. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Not quite. To be accurate, Galloglass has voiced opposition between the last two move discussions. Road Wizard (talk) 18:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Damn, didn't see that. I just read the box. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Galloglass hasn't voted in either section. I think the current discussion should run its course, but the page should not be moved again as it now seems extremely unlikely (a snowball's chance in fact) that the move to the current page name will be opposed. --Philip Stevens (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Galloglass's did vote in the one before the one before this one. Galloglass opposed the immediate move at the same time many of us did because we weren't at the point of no return. The explanation was that we should observe the conventions around election page names, but it wasn't clear what Galloglass interpreted those to require. I state this just to clarify that Galloglass did express an opinion. -Rrius (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I closed the previous discussion after the page was moved, assuming that that closed the debate. Galloglass then left a comment which I reverted, as the discussion had been closed. It's in the history if anybody wants to fish it out. Wereon (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is. Road Wizard (talk) 22:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the move per WP:SNOW is still valid. The clause states: "If an issue doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a desired outcome, don't keep pushing for it anyway." Even if one user opposes the move, it is very unlikely for the result of the discussion to be against the move. --Philip Stevens (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC) I readily agree that if this decision was simply a matter of balancing probabilities, the probability of "not 2010" must be less than 1%. However, all the discussion I have seen so far has focused on the probability rather than on the question of why there is any reason at all to use a crystal ball, no matter how good that crystall ball looks. What exactly is the problem with keeping this article named "next general election" until the point at which the date of the elction is confirmed? I can see no benefit all in doing this before an election is announced. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Yes, as the law stands, the next election miust be in 2010. However, as noted, that law has already been suspended once in its 98-year history, and it could be suspended again.  Such a suspension is of course unlikely, but the desperately-unlikely can happen: two years ago anyone suggesting that New Labour would ever nationalise the banks have been laughed out of town, on their way to a compulsory check-up on whether they had the slightest grasp of political realities.
 * The chances are much lower than 1%. Even if there is a terrorist attack or act of god, the odds of an election being postponed beyond 2010 is vanishingly small. In reality, the odds are about the same as the US congressional elections being postponed to January 1 or 2, 2011 (which is theoretically possible since Congress sets the election date). Crystal ball doesn't apply. We have sources saying an election will be in 2010, and we know it would take a change in the law to accomplish a delay. If anything, assuming the possibility poses a crystal ball issue, and naming the article on that basis gives the remote possibility undue weight. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Rirus. It's reasonable to presume that most people will be looking for an article under the title '2010'. Whilst Wikipedia shouldn't crystal ball, we also can't be allowing for the suspension of national laws. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As I argued, the chances of the parliament's term being extended beyond 2010 is in my opinion so small as to be discounted. The only time it's been extended was during the two world wars, and I don't see another catastrophic event like that on the horizon. HonouraryMix (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Move for the Love of all that is Reasonable under Heaven This is Wiki admin Hell writ large! As has been mentioned before, over I think a dozen articles now, UK law means a 2009 election is impossible, and a 2010 poll MUST be held before the Summer of 2010. There is no other CREDIBLE option. For the good of the credibility of the Wiki project, let us get on with making this article the best we can...with its correct title being a good starting point. Remember, the UK does not have fixed term elections, this is the best we could have done up to now under the circumstances. Now that a 2009 poll is impossible, a 2010 move is the only option we have. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I quote agree that it is overwhelmingly likely that the election will be in 2010. However, the argument that "most people will be looking for an article under the title 2010" doesn't justify a move, because we can simply use redirects from multiple variants of the title "United Kingdom general election, 2010". So I'll try asking again: what exactly is the problem with keeping the title as "Next United Kingdom general election" until the date of election is formally announced? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Because for many years now, we've used "Next UK general election" with one eye on 2009 or 2010 as the title to use when the time comes (I am sure there are past discussions in the archives). The time has now come. In the broadest sense we re talking about "the next general election to be held in the United Kingdom", but specifically (and Wiki should always be about facts, should it not?) we are lining up for what should/must be the 2010 general election. Everyday normal people will not search for "54th United Kingdom general election" or "2009/10 UK election". Everyday normal people will look for "2010 United Kingdom general election" or "United Kingdom general election, 2010". I think the time has come to stop become drowned in Wiki Admin Hell, and just get on with moving the article. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really answer my question. Until the election is called, it will be the "next UK general election", and that title remains clear and unambiguous until moment the elction is called.
 * As above, what's the problem with using redirects from "2010 United Kingdom general election" or "United Kingdom general election, 2010" etc?
 * And I'd really prefer if you could rants about "admin hell", becuase I don't see anyone using admin tools to complicate this issue, and — more importantly — it doesn't get us any closer to an explanation of what exactly is the problem with using an article title which reflects the fact that date of the election is not known for certain until it's announced?
 * Also, I think WP:COMMONNAME is relevant here. "Next election" still seems to me to be the most common usage. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, what do you expect when the limit for a 2009 election was only on Monday?
 * A lot of the issue is logistical. There can be no trace left of the present "Next election" page once the election has taken place, because it'll then be describing a different event. You can't change 1,000-odd pages overnight, and now that a 2010 election is a certainty there's no reason not to get all that guff over with now. Wereon (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So we agree that WP:COMMONNAME points to "Next election" rather than "2010 election". Good. There's one question resolved, and per our naming guidelines it's the crucial one.  When the WP:COMMONNAME changes, we can review the question again.
 * The logistical argument is not persuasive. Whenever the election is called, changing 1,000 pages to remove references to the "next general election" is not a huge job. Even at five minutes per page (a generous allowance, since many pages will only need a small tweak to replace "next election" with "2010 election"), that's 100 hours work in all, or three hours work per week for each of ten editors during the 3-week election campaign.  Given the interest that elections attract, and the number of editors who will be working in this area, this looks to me like no problem at all.
 * As to certainty, the date is only certain once the elction is called; until then we are dealing with varying degrees of likelihood (depending on how it is assessed). Since the Septennial Act was amended in 1911 to become efefctively a Quinquennial Act, there have been 24 general elections.  Two of those 24 elections have been postponed, (viz those due in 1915 and 1940, respectively), and although both were postoponed during World Wars, it is entirely with the powers of Parliament to choose to postpone the next election in the face of the economic crisis and a war which has lasted longer than WWII. We all seem to agree that this is highly unlikely, but it's not a certainty, and the only serious argument I have seen so far for treating it as if it was a certainty is the unpersuasive one than 1,000 articles relating to a high-profile topic cannot be updated in three weeks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As you said, those 2 elections were during the wars - that wouldn't apply here except in very unusual circumstances. I cannot see how the election could be delayed by the several months needed to move it out of 2010 without a similar situation happening. --h2g2bob (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - the election will be in 2010 (unless the country collapses or something). --h2g2bob (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Kirkbride Confirms She Won't Stand at Election
--Mais oui! (talk) 12:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "I want to take this opportunity to confirm to you, my constituents, that I will not be representing you all after the next General Election. I am sad to be leaving but this is entirely my decision."
 * http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/12/exclusive-kirkbride-confirms-she-wont.html


 * "Tory MP Julie Kirkbride to stand down at election"
 * --Mais oui! (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Name of the article (con't)
Just wondering...although we already know the election will be held in 2010, couldn't an alternative title been the 55th (54th..?) United Kingdom general election? I mean, like "The Next United Kingdom general election" can't be the first few word of the article forever. nat.utoronto 02:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * At what point do you start counting? The formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain (1707), the adoption of Ireland into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801), the creation of the Irish free State (1922) or the point when the country changed its name to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1927)? Road Wizard (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Stated counting at 1801 seeing as articles regarding general elections in the UK before 1801 were named "British general election" (see Template:British elections (1707-1800)) and after 1801 were named "United Kingdom general election" (see Template:United Kingdom elections) obviously we can't use Wikipedia as a source, however, we have to start counting from somewhere. nat.utoronto 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't really need to count them at all. It may be useful to count them, but not at the expense of conducting original research. Previous counts that have popped up probably owe more to Wikipedia's naming conventions on dropping "United" from the Kingdom of Great Britain (done for the sake of clarity between the different stages of the country's development as far as I understand) than from any external sourcing.
 * I don't think the statement "This is the 55th United Kingdom general election" can ever be sourced appropriately as external sources start counting at different times; we could perhaps go with the statement "This is the 55th general election since the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1801" as that can be sourced, but I am not sure whether we would need to reflect the clarification in the title. Road Wizard (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Along the same lines, is there anything under WP:NAME that would support using that name? -Rrius (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Iunno. I was just looking at this from a Canadian perspective where the Wikipedia articles mention both the year and the "n"th election, and where Elections Canada names the elections by number (i.e. 41st General Election). I just looked at some UK Electoral Commission reports and they use just the word Election followed by the year (eg Election 2001, or Election 2005) or even using the term "General election" followed by the year. nat.utoronto 08:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's just a Canadian thing - they're used to the practice of numbering elections, like the Americans are used to the practice of numbering parliaments ("the 110th Congress", etc). The UK doesn't usually use either, in my experience; it's the "XXXX election" (plus month if there's two in a year) and the "Parliament of XXXX-YYYY" for the session following. Shimgray | talk | 14:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note tho, the template that is being used as a portal for this election (Template:55th United Kingdom general election) uses the name 55th United Kingdom General Election nat.utoronto 08:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. But here I think that Articles are normally titled using the most common English-language name of the subject of the article should apply here - it is rare to see UK general elections referred to by number, as the reference to the Electoral Commission suggests above. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems to be a Wikipedia anomaly - I've not seen that system used in most (or perhaps any!) offline sources. Shimgray | talk | 14:23, 24 December 2009 (UTC)