Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4

Table of results
The total votes column in the results table doesn't add - I get 29,524,464. BBC site has 29,691,380. I suppose the difference is somewhere in the smaller party results that were not published in the BBC results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.254.107 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the BBC's results are full of typos. Unless you feel like trawling through all the local authority web sites looking for the exact results, there's very little you can do until Parliament/the Electoral Commission publish the definitive results. Wereon (talk) 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Electoral commission figures are avaialble from http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/results/general_elections . Total votes are 29,687,604. A number of minor changes to incorporate.Drpknight (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've started this. Note that the previous Green party figures included some double counting since the England and Wales Green party has been separated from that of NI and Scotland. This seems inconsistent...none of the other parties are treated in this way, although I'm aware that there are sensitivities about the status of e.g., Scottish Labour. Some of the figures for the very small parties are still erroneous (and the names, too, in some cases), but I might spoil the formatting if I change these.Drpknight (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The Green Party of England and Wales is a totally separate party from the Scottish Green Party - hence counted separately. The Scottish Labour Party is part od the UK Labour party so is included in the total under 'Labour Party'. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough...but since this distinction doesn't seem to be recognised by many of the sources used here for collating results (e.g., BBC, Electoral Commission) errors can arise. This led to the double counting previously noted. Drpknight (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Are those little icons with the triangles supposed to sort the table? They appear to randomise the order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.67.22 (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Vote Labour Out " image removed


Ok, I have removed the image on the right. "Vote Labour Out" - the is amusing but not encyclopedic. We are here to inform and not amuse. The joke does not seem to be notable, and in any case the text below is ultimately unverifiable. Keep the joke in someone's userspace - not in an article. (Kudos to the photographer, though.)--Scott Mac 21:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Amusing? Definitely. Encyclopaedic? Less so. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   21:54, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Electorate
Is there a section on the difference between 'the electorate' and 'those of the electorate who voted'? Given that the British electoral system operates like the Acerbo Law I would like to see something on the page about the number of electors who didn't vote and any changes in the size this group from previous elections.Keith-264 (talk) 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what an Acerbo Law is but the 2010 turnout was 65.1% just needs to be added somewhere. (61.28% in 2005 and 59.17% in 2001 ) Suprised it is not in the infobox. MilborneOne (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It is part of the infobox template - just not used so I have added it. But as you have said some sourced narrative on the changes from last time may help. MilborneOne (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I assumed I'd missed it when I read the page. 34.9% abstention though ought to be considered a choice as much as a vote (if we are describing the behaviour of the electorate, that is). Are there any statistics which incorporate the abstentions (eg 'Tories 23% of the electorate, 36% of the vote')? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acerbo_law The Acerbo law did for Mussolini what FPTP does here.Keith-264 (talk) 00:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Source/external link
I don't know if it helps, but the BBC Election 2010 site is still up. It's on http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/election2010/. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

306 Seats?
Why does the article state that the Conservatives won 306 seats? They won 307.

If it is because of the speaker then why isn't the speaker's seat counted as a different party/shown as a different colour on the previous elections maps, in the UK General Election articles pre-2010? --Jonesy1289 (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Counting fail.
 * Past errors do not justify present ones. Wereon (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its because of the speaker. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Why aren't the previous election articles updated then?--Jonesy1289 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you haven't done it. You're an editor like the rest of us. Valenciano (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldham East and Saddleworth
Is this a by-election? I understand it as a re-run of the 2010 General Election, in one constituency. It might warrant it's own article, but I'm not sure the title Oldham East and Saddleworth byelection, 2011 (spelling and date speculation aside) is valid - it's not a by-election. There is a wider implication for this - if it is not valid, then we need to go through all articles and remove the vote from counts etc, until the re-run occurs. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a new election, according to the relevant legislation. See also Winchester by-election, 1997 and Talk:Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010 for more examples. Warofdreams talk 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)


 * We certainly don't remove from election tables the number of votes and the winner of the seat if the election in one constituency is later declared void - see 1997 where Winchester, subsequently avoided, is included. The votes in Oldham were in fact cast as part of the general election. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Junk
I notice this article is slowly filling up with non-notable stuff one example is Celebrity endorsements anybody know why a a list of celebrities is notable or encyclopedic? MilborneOne (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to remove the uncited ones that have been added as per WP:BLP as well as the annoying formatting added by the anonymous user. I would suggest it is encyclopedic as numerous newspaper articles have dealt with the subject of celebrity endorsement of political parties. and more. Furthermore the connection between celebrity and politics is capitalised upon by promotional campaigning. Poker Flunky (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Do we really need that section at all? It really doesn't add that much to the article and the influence of these endorsements is minimal to non-existent. Valenciano (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I would agree a lots of people say they support x or y party and unless the celebrity was a notable part of the campaign it is not really encyclopedic. MilborneOne (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep trying to tidy up the section although random names keep being added that dont appear to be related to the general election. Some of the others although reliable references really just say that x will vote y rather than any real endorsement or political activity. If we dont have a consensus to remove this then some of I will vote x entries should be looked at for relevance. MilborneOne (talk) 18:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Small table in results section - immediately above "Turnout"
I'm not really sure in the point of this table (the one with "3 main parties", "cabinet" and "opposition" in). The use of "cabinet" and "opposition" could also be misleading. I think it should be removed.--Jonesy1289 (talk) 11:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it before I saw this note. I couldn't understand it either. It was originally added by on 9 December here. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Avoided/voided
I know "avoided" means "voided" but I see little reason to use an unfamiliar term when a familiar term has the same meaning. If "voided" is unwanted, then can we say "declared void"? DrKiernan (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lib Dem swing percentage error
According to the infobox, how can Nick Clegg have had a swing of +1.0% when the Lib Dems' share of the vote went from 22.1% to 23.0%? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 08:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because swing is normally calculated as notional change in votes between two parties I presume (see: Swing (United Kingdom)) -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 17:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Swing is half the difference between the share of the vote of the main two candidates. Therefore if the gap between two candidates had been 5.6% and closed to 3.6%, the swing would be 1% - it it the equivalent of 1% coming off one candidate and switching to the other. This can lead to a swing to the leading party despite its share of the vote falling if support for he second placed party fell even more. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Popular vote"
Why does this measure the proportion according to votes cast and not the votes of the electorate? More than a third of the votes were abstentions. The second largest vote shouldn't be ignored.Keith-264 (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Because not casting a vote means you didn't vote. Plus it's ascribing intent without evidence. Not everybody who didn't vote was abstaining. Some might have had things come up that meant they couldn't get to the polling station in time. Some might simply have forgotten. Some might have died post the closing of the rolls. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 11:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not voting is abstention, ascribing motive to the behaviour of not voting is not the point. 1/3 of the electorate did not vote and that is significant since the proportion of people abstaining has changed as well as the size of the electorate. I think that when the statistics shown do not make it explicit that the "share of the vote" excludes 1/3 of the electorate, they are misleading.Keith-264 (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, not casting a vote means not casting a vote. An abstention, in this case, is not a vote (as compared to a spoilt ballot). The term "share of the vote" quite logically means each parties share of the votes cast, so including abstentions in this case would be misleading as it would imply 1/3 of the electorate actually went to the polls and cast a blank vote, as opposed to not voting at all. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 12:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No that is sophistry.Keith-264 (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If 'none of the above' was on the ballot as in some US states, that would be different. However the key word in the phrase 'popular vote' is the 'vote' part - if you don't vote, you have not indicated any preference. Not voting can not be assumed to indicate anything in particular. It could be deliberate rejection of all choices but it could equally be due to pure laziness. Therefore, 'popular vote' rightly describes the relative popularity of the options on the ballot papers.
 * Could I add that another aspect of this discussion is perhaps the issue with smaller parties that do not have candidates in all areas. If a party only contests half of the seats and achieves 2% of the popular vote overall, it is quite possible that the party could have doubled the share of the vote by contesting all seats - but we can not guess. Also, it may be that voters of this party have chosen not to vote in protest at their preference not being on the ballot paper, but we can never know. Therefore the only way to measure the popular support of each party is to base it on what has been conclusively proved by voters actively making a preference. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "if you don't vote, you have not indicated any preference" – for a candidate. Popular vote is relative to the size of the electorate (the 'populus'). If relative to the electorate, the number of abstentions change, such as the long-term decline in turn-outs in Britain since the 1950s, that is an electoral fact which should be acknowledged, along with the small rise in 2010. Is there a vested interest among the big parteis in low turnouts? Ignoring abstentions because we don't know why people abstain assumes we do know why people vote. We don't, we only know 'what' prople vote, 'why' is speculation. The fact remains that no British government has been formed with a popular majority and the only government formed with a majority of the votes cast was the one in 1931, which wasn't a democratic election so doesn't count.Keith-264 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1935 also saw the "National" coalition win an absolute majority of the popular vote. Ditto the Unionist Coalition in the Khaki Election of 1900 (the wiki page for the 1886 election shows the Tories and Liberal Unionists as being in coalition in 1886 as well but that is not strictly correct - it was more of a "confidence and supply arrangement"). Once one heads back deeper into the nineteenth century there were plenty of elections in which the Liberals technically had an overall majority of the vote (even 1874 when they lost) but it gets a bit meaningless because there was no mass electorate before 1867, there was no pretence that seats should be of equal size, and people thought more in terms of "interests" being represented in the political process rather than head-counting.MonachusLuscus (talk) 11:58, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "An absolute majority of the popular vote" is a convoluted way of saying that no party got a majority vote of the electorate or of the votes cast. In 1931 the Tories got 55% of the votes cast; involving other parties in a coalition was a gesture. Going back beyond 1928 means that even the attenuated democracy achieved then doesn't apply. Women had no vote and many men didn't either; I'm not sure what the term "mass electorate" means, when exclusion from the franchise was still the principle on which it was based.Keith-264 (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My point was to correct the claim that “the only government formed with a majority of the votes cast was the one in 1931” by pointing out that there have been two others since something resembling the modern electoral map came into being in 1885 (iirc there were a lot of uncontested seats in 1900 as the Liberal organisation was in decay). “An absolute majority” means >50%, as opposed to a “plurality”, which is often loosely and not quite correctly described as a majority (“X has a majority of 10,000 in his seat” even though he has < 50%). “Involving other parties” in 1931 was not just “a gesture” – the election was something of a personal vote for MacDonald, and National Labour and National Liberals (and official Liberals until 1932) had a grossly disproportionate share of Cabinet seats, whilst Tory Diehards like Churchill, Amery and Geoffrey Lloyd were excluded, enabling Baldwin to bring in provincial self-government for India despite Tory grassroot opposition. The size of the majority was a surprise – Protection (1932) might not have been brought in with a smaller majority – but they didn’t have psephology then and one should not assume that the Tory dominance of the interwar period was anything like as certain as it appears with hindsight. Baldwin wanted a “bigger tent” and there was never any serious thought of dropping the “National” label in 1935, even though MacDonald himself had become too decrepit to continue as PM.


 * “Mass electorate” (although it of course became a lot bigger in 1884) means exactly what it says – household suffrage in the boroughs, including a great many working-class voters, was “a leap in the dark” and was a seachange in the nature of politics, along with the advent of a cheap press in the 1860s, politicians like Gladstone starting to make big setpiece public speeches to vast crowds, and the secret ballot in 1872. Anachronistic criticisms about itinerant labourers being “excluded” or women not having the vote (an idea which was on the loopy fringe of politics when John Stuart Mill proposed it) don’t really serve any purpose, not least as that isn’t how mid-Victorians thought. The speeches of 1866-7 are mostly about how responsible and middle-class the skilled artisans had become and how they had earned the right to join their betters in having the privilege of the ballot, with of course a lot of political horse-trading going on about how different franchise thresholds would favour different parties.


 * I am, however, conscious that this isn't a forum for discussing the political history of 1867 or 1931 so it might be best to leave it there.MonachusLuscus (talk) 01:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you've missed my point that changes in the franchise make general terms inadequate. It is only after 1928 that UK elections have any resemblance to a democratic franchise, it is only after 1928 that abstention gains its modern meaning, since before that a large part of the adult public were forcibly abstained by denial of the franchise. My point is simple - that the behaviour of up to 1/3 of the electorate merits mention in election articles like this. If you look further down the page someone mentions that there is provision in the template, I say let's use it.Keith-264 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not “missed your point”. I’ve read the entire discussion with some amusement, and my view fwiw is the same as every other contributor on this thread. Lots of people, as anyone who has ever canvassed for a political party finds out, have a preference but for one reason or another don’t vote (you can tell from the Marked Register which elections people have voted in, as they tick your name off when you go to vote, and give you a numbered ballot paper so that your vote can be searched for and extracted if somebody else turns up claiming to be you). Turnout was low in 2001 because it was blatantly obvious that Blair was going to trounce Hague (most elections are not as obvious before the votes are cast as they seem in hindsight, but that one was). In a local council election, where the turnout is small, “differential turnout” may decide the result but in most cases there is little reason to suppose that the distribution of party preference amongst non-voters is vastly different from the distribution among voters – you cannot assume that everybody who does not vote has made a conscious decision to “abstain” and that their heads should, by implication, be counted as reducing the mandate of the government of the day. That was as true before women in their 20s got the vote in 1928 (although people at the time talked of Britain being a “democracy” from at least the Third Reform Act in 1884 onwards) as it is today.


 * I doubt anyone would object to including turnout figures in the articles, but in answer to your original question the article measures party percentages according to votes actually cast because that’s how election results are measured. I’ve no great wish to prolong this discussion further - my point was simply, for the benefit of other readers, to correct factual errors in your remarks, e.g. that 1931 was the “only” example of a modern government winning an absolute majority of the vote, or that the Tories “only” included other parties in the National Government as “a gesture”.MonachusLuscus (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're pulling my leg. If you have read the thread as you claim you wouldn't have written the above except for reasons of satire. You didn't correct anything, you made assertions which are manifestly untenable. You cannot compare elections with equal adult suffrage with those without it. You cannot deny that in 1931 one party got 55% of the votes cast and that no party got 50% +1 in any other election with that suffrage. As for the point I raised, an appeal to the majority (!) isn't the point, neither is "time-honoured usage". We should record the behaviour of all voters in an election and there is template provision for it to be done. What could be simpler and less controversial?Keith-264 (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim that I “didn’t correct anything”, but in fact you claimed on 27 October that 1931 was the “only” example of “a government” winning an absolute majority of the vote, and on 6 November that the Tories “only” included other parties in the National Government as “a gesture”. Both of those claims are factually incorrect, and I corrected them. You claimed on 27 October that 1931 “wasn't a democratic election so doesn't count”, but in your post today you claim that it was the only election which does count as it was the only one with “equal adult suffrage” (in fact, as explained, the same government got >50% in 1935 as well), so perhaps your position on that one has changed over the last week. Your initial question on 24 October was “Why does this measure the proportion according to votes cast and not the votes of the electorate?” and on 27 October you asserted, incorrectly, that "popular vote" means the percentage vote of the entire electorate. It has been explained to you that election percentages are recorded as shown in the article – on this occasion what you call “appeal to the majority” and "time-honoured usage" prevails, although as I say I doubt anyone would have any problem with listing percentage turnout figures as well.MonachusLuscus (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I used the term attenuated democracy. I have been humouring you but that is at an end.Keith-264 (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The answer to your original question is because reporting the result for each party as a % of votes cast is standard procedure, and not only in English language, foreign language sources which report results worldwide do the same. reliable sources do that and therefore that's the convention that we follow. You seem to be suggesting a completely different format, purely it seems to make a point. Certainly, we could change the heading of the relevant section but abandoning a format widely used doesn't seem appropriate. Valenciano (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making is that ignoring the votes of 1/3 of the electorate in a national election isn't encyclopaedic and is notable. Is it too much to ask for it to be made clear that discussion of percentages only refers to votes cast? A convention is not scientific and risks appeal to authority and appeal to popularity which aren't encyclopaedic either.Keith-264 (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The simplest way is to rename the section to make that clear. Incidentally the idea that there was a long term decline in turnouts from the 1950s is dubious. Turnout at General Elections from 1922-1997 fluctuated between 71% and 77%, the elections of 1950-1951 were exceptions to that. Turnout slumped in 2001 and has started creeping back up but it's too early to identify a trend from that. Valenciano (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Renaming would satisfy me by making the point explicit. Out of curiosity, does your point about turnout account for the more undemocratic nature of the franchise before 1948? Does it account for the irrelevance of most votes in safe seats since?Keith-264 (talk) 07:42, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There have always been safe seats. Possibly more so in the past, since there were greater numbers of uncontested seats and far less fourth party candidates. Fascinating as all that is though, it has zero relevance to this article and therefore per WP:NOTFORUM shouldn't be here. As others have pointed out below you're perfectly welcome to mention the turnout figure and put it in some sort of context. Valenciano (talk) 16:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This is all nonsense. The term "popular vote" has a set meaning, and it does not include non-voters. The term used is the right term and should in consequence continue to be used. The fact that an editor comes along who doesn't like the term doesn't really matter. Coming up with some neologism or circumlocution to replace "popular vote" to assuage one wrongheaded perception is silly at best. The fact is, not voting is not a vote, despite Keith's unsupported assertion—saying so is at best a play on words. Coming up with some "compromise" will serve no greater purpose than quieting a squeaky wheel, and will never meet the stated goal of making the name more clear. -Rrius (talk) 10:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest you keep your slurs to yourself.Keith-264 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Popular vote' is about those of the populus who have voted. What you are trying to describe is popular opinion which is different as it could include the views of those who have not voted. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree, if 1/3 of the electorate abstain, their votes shouldn't disappear down a memory hole, whatever the abstainers do, they don't confer a mandate on anyone.Keith-264 (talk) 14:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You can't conduct original research and adjust the published election data. However one alternative to consider is to use the optional turnout= field on the infobox. Road Wizard (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Suits me.Keith-264 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What "slurs" exactly are you referring to? From what I can tell, your understanding of that word is as poor as your understanding of "popular vote". -Rrius (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Turnout
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/elections/turnout-general-elections? At the 1 May 1997 general election: 71.4%, at the 7 June 2001 general election: 59.54%, at the 5 May 2005 general election: 61.4%, at the 6 May 2010 general election: 65.1%. Is this an acceptable source?Keith-264 (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Perfectly acceptable, although turnout figures going back further than that will be available somewhere.MonachusLuscus (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.Keith-264 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Most 3-cornered election
The article states that "In terms of votes it was the most "three-cornered" election since 1923, and in terms of seats since 1929." How could it be the most in seats since 1929, when the Lib Dems dropped seats? Surely 2005 was more 3-cornered? 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * in terms of the gap in seats between the first and third party, 2010 was a lot closer than 2005, and the closest since 1929. RodCrosby (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Thanks for making that clear. 81.159.112.136 (talk) 21:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

results / parties
if only parties which got more than 500 votes are mentioned in the results section, that should be noticed there. --82.113.122.166 (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

MPs who were de-selected, barred from standing or defeated in selection
I challenged the recent addition of MPs who were de-selected, barred from standing or defeated in selection as none of those listed were involved in the election. User:Sillputty87 has added the section again with the edit summary Sort of is notable as the reason why none of them were involved in the election is because the either were barred, de-selected or lost in the selection meaning they had attempted to stand again. While I can understand the point loads of people did not stand in the election for loads of reasons and picking jusst a few of them that were not involved has no relevance to the actual election. Suggest that as this has been challenged then it needs to gain a consensus to add this section, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Colors on Infograph
Does anyone else find it confusing that the yellow for SNP and the 'orange' for LibDem are so similar? Not sure what protocol is- but can LibDem get a darker shade of Orange, or perhaps change SNP to Lilac, which is also an official color? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jkaganoff (talk • contribs) 14:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I find it very confusing. Not everyone reading this is from UK, and we don't have a clue what that map says. There needs to be a proper color coding key on the map.

There needs to be a proper color key on the Map
Not everyone reading this is from UK, and we don't have a clue what that map says. There needs to be a proper color coding key on the map. Clear, and easy to follow. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two Wrongs (talk • contribs) 13:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Article should mention boundary rigging
Labour had a bias in the electoral system of 10% because we need boundary reform. Without this the Conservatives would have won the election. (CWLilius (talk) 14:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC))
 * The Conservatives received 47% of the seats based on 36% of the votes cast. Thats a rather large bias in their favour don't you think? -  Gallo glass  15:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually they got 37% of the vote because we don't count Northern Ireland. Labour got a majority of 66 on 35% of the vote in 2005. (CWLilius (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
 * The Conservatives got 47.1% of the seats on 36.4% of the vote, a bonus of 10.7%. Labour got 39.7% of the seats on 29.0% of the vote, exactly the same bonus as the tories, so no, the article doesn't need to mention "boundary rigging", especially since the boundaries were drawn by an independent commission and no credible reliable source makes such a claim. Valenciano (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The boundaries have been rigged in Labour's favour since the late 1990s, which is the only reason we have a left-wing coalition instead of the Conservative government we voted for. Labour seats are much smaller and only require half the number of voters needed to elect a Conservative MP. (CWLilius (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
 * I don't think this is conclusive of rigging at all. The academic research I've seen (handy summary here, see also Cube rule) has a number of explanations, the largest being "Differential Turnout" - essentially when the constituency result is obvious and a vote will clearly make no difference, Conservative supporters tend to still bother voting but Labour supporters tend to bother voting less - which effects the national summation of votes. Rwendland (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * To the o.p., if you can find reliable sources from trustworthy publications that make these claims, post them here and we can discuss. I doubt you'll find any reliable sources though that claim that the boundaries are rigged. Not even the Conservatives make that claim. Their argument is that the length of time between boundary reviews leads to these anomalies, rather than any conspiracy against them by the boundary commission, whose hearings they play an active role in. Valenciano (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The boundaries are rigged in Labour's favour, which is why we have brought forward legislation to equalize the boundaries and to have English Votes for English Laws. That way people in England will finally get the government they voted for in 2005 and 2010. (CWLilius (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2015 (UTC))
 * As I've said twice already, find reliable sources from trustworthy publications which make those claims and we can discuss their inclusion here. Basically, find a source which argues that the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, the legislation which determines how constituencies are drawn, was deliberately designed by the second Thatcher government to discriminate against her own party. Unless you do that, no change will be made to the article. Also, this talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not a forum for you to complain that the Conservatives, who got little more than a third of the vote, didn't get an absolute majority. Valenciano (talk) 09:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Labour got an absolute majority on an even lower share of the vote in 2005. (CWLilius (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC))


 * Sorry, but what part of "find reliable sources from trustworthy publications which make those claims and we can discuss their inclusion here." is unclear? Valenciano (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, forget the above. Superseded by this : Sockpuppet_investigations/GeorgeJefferys Valenciano (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Number of votes
According to the number you've given, the total of the votes should be 29,520,569  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.194.15 (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Query about first Results table
QUERY The data in the first table under RESULTS only adds up to 644 seats out of 650, and does not include SDLP (3 seats), ALLIANCE (1 seat), INDEPENDENT SYLVIA HERMON (1 seat) and SPEAKER (1 seat).

Is there a reason for this, or is it an inadvertent omission? --Jfp2006 (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. 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 https://web.archive.org/20100502011021/http://www.comres.co.uk:80/page165453351.aspx to http://www.comres.co.uk/page165453351.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100503221429/http://news.sky.com:80/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-First-Instant-Polls-Suggest-Win-For-David-Cameron/Article/201004415622529?f=rss to http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Leaders-Debate-First-Instant-Polls-Suggest-Win-For-David-Cameron/Article/201004415622529?f=rss
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100502084424/http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk:80/opinions/2010CSOH56.html to http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2010CSOH56.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100507001205/http://www.thisislondon.co.uk:80/standard/article-23830737-david-cameron-the-prime-minister-that-london-now-needs.do to http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23830737-david-cameron-the-prime-minister-that-london-now-needs.do
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528064442/http://www.national-front.org.uk/2010manifesto.htm to http://www.national-front.org.uk/2010manifesto.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom general election, 2010. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070618035533/http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm to http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/archive/Default.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305114506/http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf to http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Ashfield
The map on the page marks the constituency of Ashfield as Conservative, when that is not the case. It appears also to marked in blue on the 2015 and 2017 maps accidentally, perhaps the constituency was confused on the map with one of a number of neighbouring seats like Sherwood, Broxtowe or Amber Valley that the Conservatives did indeed gain at this election. Can this be corrected? 86.19.130.219 (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Morning Star - a major paper?
Hi. Thanks for your help on The Independent Group article (I especially didn't know that adding a reference wasn't considered a minor edit - useful to know). Here, though, the intro to the table does say 'major papers'. Morning Star isn't one of those. I'll take it out of the table. --Woofboy (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:MINOR for more. Minor is meant to mean only very minor stuff. Bondegezou (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'When not to mark as minor changes' -- really helpful. Thanks! --Woofboy (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Layout of Lead
In order to deal with layout of the Lead, I would like to ask those involved in the dispute with myself to look into this some more and determine how best to proceed. I will begin by explaining that my action to redo the Lead when I started was due to the fact that when I read it, I found it to be too large and overly detailed - I also was concerned about the use of minor details and the fact I had read up a bit on MOS:LEAD and how it states that such a section of information for the article to begin on should consist of a summary of the article's key points of information. Since then, I had a further look at MOS:LEAD, and found a notable line within the section of MOS:INTRO:

"'Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.'"

Based on this, regardless of how the Lead is written out in future, is the current arrangement at fault per this line? GUtt01 (talk) 15:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Others are welcome to add input to this. GUtt01 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The 2010 election was interesting and complex, with several unique features in its results and outcome. The lead was carefully written to capture these aspects and inform the reader as concisely as possible of the facts, with precision. It is not acceptable to lose or mangle these accurate descriptions in pursuit of some fetish called MOS:LEAD. The current lead IS a summary of a complex event. I doubt if more than a couple of sentences could be removed without loss of accuracy or meaning. RodCrosby (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * While the summary is what the Lead is supposed to be in MOS:LEAD, MOS:INTRO makes clear that editors shouldn't make lengthy paragraphs and overly specific details - that is the purpose for the rest of the article. The lead should be focused on key points such as the general background of the election and opinions of voters and/or political commentators, the voting result, and the overall effect that the election had on the political governance by parties. At present, the current appearance of the Lead is that the paragraphs are overinflated than they should, and consist of too much detail - for example, why is there a need to detail about a voided result in a constiuency, when that's a detail best left within the section on the Result? GUtt01 (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2019 (UTC)


 * It would have been better therefore for you to have retained all the important, carefully written facts elsewhere in the article (such as a once-in-a-hundred-year criminal conviction), rather than their wholesale deletion, and replacement with non-factual errors. RodCrosby (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That fact I would agree to having laid out elsewhere in the article, but you would have to provide a citation for it. Some other details might raise a question though - such as "In terms of votes it was the most "three-cornered" election since 1923, and in terms of seats since 1929." In this example, where exactly was there any mention of a "Three cornered election" in the media? That sounds more like a personal opinion of an editor, rather than a neutral point from a political commentator. GUtt01 (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * However, if there were any errors in there, would not the best way to sort it out is to determine first if they could be corrected or deleted? And notably, some details would only be important if they had highly significant notability - I agree to details about this being the first coalition government formed out of an election, but any that are not significant to be a key point in the Lead, really shouldn't be there. Remember, any greater details should be saved for the main body of information in the article, per MOS:INTRO. The problem here is that we need to determine what details have the right to be in the Lead. (BTW - that "once-in-a-hundred-year criminal conviction" would be given considerable questions over verifiable evidence - "was subsequently declared void on petition because of illegal practices during the campaign, the first such instance since 1910" - as we need to know if that was the case and didn't happen anytime between those two election years.) GUtt01 (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and the line "The share of votes for parties other than Labour or the Conservatives was 35%, the largest since the 1918 general election." That's a factual error - it's large, but not larger than that for the 1918 election by small margin. GUtt01 (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In terms of the layout I went for, done in brief detail, I'll breakdown it per each of the four paragraphs:
 * Date of election; primary reason election was called for by governing party; date election was called into law/agreed upon by parties/accepted by monarch
 * General backdrop of election - significant, key policies debated or elements surrounding election, and opinion polls of main parties
 * Result of election for main parties (i.e. parties that have considerable presence in Parliament, listed in infobox) - net gain/loss of seats, vote share, and notable records based on available figures from past electins (i.e. highest/lowest results)
 * Outcome of election - impact on political party leaders (i.e. resignation), possible deals in formation of government, significant effects on minor parties.
 * GUtt01 (talk) 09:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm gonna not further the dispute on the Lead for now. I've lost interest in the matter, and I feel it just is too complicated an issue to deal with at present. Appreciate input, and hope that this concludes the matter for now with you. GUtt01 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Lede
I think the lede is very long and some of the detail on e.g. coalition negotiations could be left out? Crookesmoor (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)