Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election/Archive 4

Post-election infobox
I will suggest a Con/Lab/SNP/LD infobox since there will be no point to include DUP/Sinn Fein/SDLP/Plaid Cymru/UUP but exclude Greens and UKIP (as the infobox only offers nine parties at most). I think including SNP and LD and excluding the others would be a reasonable decision. Lmmnhn (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it's reasonable to exclude UKIP and the Greens, despite them posting respectable vote totals (mostly because they contested a large number of constituencies, unlike the regional parties), but if we're going to include the Liberal Democrats, we need to include the DUP...since they now have the exact same number of MPs. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @User:Kudzu1, but then the vote share of DUP is far less than the LD. Lmmnhn (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter. They won the same number of seats and will have the same vote share where it matters, in the House of Commons. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * UKIP got 4 million votes, which combined across the UK is the 3rd highest so UKIP should appear on this information box too, despite only winning 1 MP it is fair and I feel it is only right that the party with the 3rd highest amount of votes from the British public is featured.  (Z2a (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC))

Resigned leaders of Labour and Lib Dem
In the current infobox, Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are both listed as leaders of Labour and the Lib Dems respectively. Yet on 8 May, the day of the results, they both resigned as leaders because of poor results in the election (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-32633388 and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32633462), so shouldn't they be removed as the leaders in the infobox and the deputy leader/acting leader be shown instead (Harriet Harman for Labour and Baroness Brinton for Lib Dems) (www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/every-major-british-political-party--except-the-conservatives--currently-led-by-a-woman-10238390.html) ? --Seagull123 (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Look at previous election pages, the leader who lost the election is listed and photoed in the infoboxOxr033 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They were both the leaders of their respective parties throughout the election campaign. Many will see them as part of the reason, maybe even the main reason, why the Conservatives won! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks! It's just confusing to see them there when the news has reported them to have resigned. Seagull123 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Category vs. article
As we know, 650 were elected. The category has 652 entries. One extra entry is accounted for by the main list. Any help finding the single rouge entry would be appreciated! Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What!? The Honourable Member for Choeung Ek? But I think I know what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * For some reason Chris Philp is listed under "C" but not under "P"? And Catherine West is also under "C" instead of "W"? Helen Whately is listed under "H" but not under "W"? Clive Lewis is listed under "C" but not under "L"? But to answer your query - I've removed the Category from Paul Goggins who is now deceased. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The people showing under the incorrect letters were due to them not having the DEFAULTSORT tag above their categories. I've now added them.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. But I also had to add the Category to Conor McGinn, so I'm not sure that the figures add up even now? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 9 May 2015 (UTC)  I must say that a comparison task would be made much, much easier if that table sorted alphabetically by surname instead of by first name!


 * Found him (by chance) - David Watts stood down and McGinn won his seat.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

UKIP 6th largest?
didn't Sinn Fein win more seats? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. So did Plaid Cymru and the SDLP. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * that's whay they shuod be removed from the info box it shuood ever be 3 parteys with con lab snp or 5 with con lab snp ld and dup due to the way uk politics works. 88.107.184.52 (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Sinn Fein won't be seated and the other groupings are so small as to be negligible. I do think the Lib Dems should go in the box because they were third party before the election, and if they're in, DUP must be as well as their seat totals are the same. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

on this point, why is lib dems 4th when the DUP received the same amount of seats and UKIP received more votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.116.170 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

should only be top three parties like after previous elections
In all articles about previous elections, only the top three parties are in infobox. This article should be changed to reflect that agreed format - or is this just politically motivated by those who don't want to accept that the Lib Dems are now insignificant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.110.75 (talk) 16:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the argument is that since the LDs were part of the Government & there was a dramatic reversal in their fortunes so they should be shown. There has been no rule that it was only the three largest parties; there just happened to be three main parties w/little (relative) movement. Personally I'm ambivalent on whether to include the LDs or not, but if pushed wouldn't include them either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryptographic.2014 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In all articles about previous elections? Did you read the articles about the elections in 1920s? Lmmnhn (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * there is kowe rule that there shud be 3 partis in the info box as shown by elections like the 1931 election which contains 6 partis it's just that at elctions sinse then onley 3 partis have had sugnificent presans at Westminster even when the liberals wher getting 6 mps they wher far ahead of the next partis and at one election ther wher onley 3 partis this election have proud used major Chang to the standing of the lib dems and the snp justifying expanding the info box to 4 partis88.107.184.52 (talk) 20:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * British politics has changed with this election, and defining a meaningful "big three" has become almost impossible. The SNP has only a modest share of the national vote, but a very substantial number of the seats due to regional concentration; the Lib Dems, formerly one of the "big three", has a much larger share of the overall vote than the SNP but now only a few MPs; and UKIP has an even larger share of the vote than the Lib Dems, but only one seat. No serious discussion of British politics can avoid taking into account all three of these in addition to the Labour and Conservative parties. -- The Anome (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

"4th largest party"
Every other GE page has only the top three listed parties on the right hand infobox, with none mentioning a fourth besides 2015. If nobody has any objection, I would like to remove Clegg.Oxr033 (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also a half-truth; the Lib Dems are tied with DUP as the fourth largest party in Parliament. -Kudzu1 (talk) 22:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * yes indeed they are, and that's not even accounting for voteshare.Oxr033 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't object to removing Clegg from the infobox, but I think there are solid grounds for including him and not the DUP: the Lib Dems received many more votes and they were a far more significant force prior to the election, meaning that people visiting the page are much more likely to want to know what happened to them at a glance than the DUP. Individually these aren't deciding factors, since the vote share argument comes down to the Lib Dems being a pan-UK party, which could be used to exclude the SNP as a regional party, and the reader interest argument raises the question of why UKIP isn't there too. Together I think they're quite convincing, however. — Nizolan  (talk) 23:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Logistically, UKIP can't be listed in the infobox. They're not the third party, nor the fourth, nor the fifth, nor sixth, nor seventh, eighth, ninth. They're tied for tenth. -Kudzu1 (talk) 23:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * They can if we use the new infobox that was agreed upon before the election. Øln (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That infobox is harder to read and less visually appealing. Although I sincerely believe the current infobox must either include the DUP or exclude the Lib Dems (an argument I appear to have lost already), I believe the presentation preserves fidelity of information.
 * UKIP received the third-largest share of the votes, it's true. But in only one constituency was UKIP actually popular enough to receive the largest share of the votes. They're everywhere! -- just not in great numbers. They are a broad-based minority. Under the UK's election system, parties that can't win seats don't get seats. There's no need to list UKIP as it will have next to no influence in the Commons. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keeping Clegg has the advantage of providing information to people reading the article who are interested in what changed since the governing party (minor partner) was soundly trounced. Thus a good reason why it should be kept there. (Indeed, that should apply to all cases of governmental change) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I do object to the 4th parties removal. Bad enough we don't include the 3rd party by votes. -  Gallo glass  07:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * United Kingdom general election, 1931. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * HaHaHa. When I came to the article I thought it looked really messy with 4 parties crammed in the infobox. I KNEW if I went back and looked there would been 3 in previous years. There is no way to look at it other than politically motivated to make a 4th place for LibDems. If you don't believe me, imagine LibDems had come in 3rd and tell me honestly if you think people would be trying to put up the 4th party. Editors are breaking the convention of the previous articles because of the election result. I actually don't care if it stays 4 parties. If it gets removed, it's in keeping with previous articles, proves Wikipedia is non-political, and everything its okay. If it stays, it proves people can't bare than SNP got too many seats and decided to make an exception for them rather than remove the LibDems. It proves that people can't bare their precious unionist,3-party system is failing. Looks bad on Wikipedia but I'd be happy with that badge of honour for everyone viewing the article to see (and then they'll come to this talk page to see the lame arguments of people trying to justify it).80.189.219.75 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the six-party infobox. UKIP came in third place, so they should be included. For the sake of political impartiality, the DUP or the Greens should be added in as well. After all, these are the six parties that have gotten a million votes (bar the DUP, but it has 8 seats on par with LD). AlexTeddy888 (talk) 13:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ukip did not come in "third place". Are you familiar with the British electoral system? Vote share is irrelevant. What matters in this system is whether a party have acquired seats in the Commons. RGloucester  — ☎
 * RGloucester is right, the info box should reflect the quaint and outdated electoral system we voted to keep in the UK, however sad. But I agree with User:Super Nintendo Chalmers that United Kingdom general election, 1931 looks perfectly good. Why do we need these huge picture book images of the leaders here? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Exclusion of the DUP
From what I have read the reason for choosing top four parties is aesthetics, and not merit. In a westminster election the outcome is seats not votes, and on that basis the DUP have performed equally to the LD party and thus should get equal billing, whether that be no billing or fourth billing. Can someone explain why the 8 seat LD get listed and the 8 seat DUP don't? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 09:29, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it is merit. The LDP were (one of) the governing party prior to the election, so they should be shown regardless of how many seats they won, as it is the change in governing status that makes them worthy of being included in the infobox. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * IS the idea of nth party wrong? Should we be looking at listing government / official opposition both prior and post and ditch the SNP? 82.18.177.13 (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Update re Northern Ireland
The Northern Ireland section is written very much from the point of view of pre-election, e.g. Sinn Fein polling the highest vote in 2010 - could it be updated properly to reflect the outcome? Aldernodules (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2015
"The Labour Party, led by Ed Miliband, won 30.4% and 232 seats, faring below polling expectations and suffering their worst defeat since 1987" This sentence is misleading. The Labour Party actually improved its vote share by about 1.5%. '... their worst defeat in terms of number of seats ...' would be more accurate.

Laworr1 (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added "in terns of seats" as a qualifier. But I think another editor should endorse this before the request is closed. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, so I'm ticking the box. Alakzi (talk) 22:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Breakdown of Results Page?
I've noticed that no one has set up a breakdown of the results page for this election so far, the past two elections have this important page is so results can be broken down to the English Counties and regions as well as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. can we please set this page up? (46.65.97.8 (talk) 09:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC))
 * I have created links for the pages in question but at the moment I am unable to actually create the article is needed through I'm very much more keeping the format of the pages to what it was back in 2010. Can someone please get on and create the page as well as the maps in question. Thanks. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC))

Endorsements - of right-wing newspapers
While various newspapers endorsed parties for this general election, might not the negative and damaging impact of a (generally) right-wing media be mentioned?


 * And what about the impact of other biased sections of the media, internet, organisations, etc? Why specifically the right-wing newspapers? BBC? The Mirror? You've been watching Question Time haven't you... *rolls eyes* Argovian (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I see you're the same anon. IP editor who's been writing in the "Aftermath - and unreported dismay" section above. Just to put that on record and highlight it for other editors. Interesting. Argovian (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.108.221 (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox: perspective from a neutral third party
Can I first say that I haven't participated in the infobox debate and due to the extensiveness of it I haven't read up on all the arguments. I may be repeating concerns that had already been raised and settled, but in any case please interpret my concerns/proposals as a neutral third party view on the ongoing infobox dilemma that this election is having.

My main proposal is this: decide on the infobox after the next government is formed, avoid the Israeli-style one at all costs.

The reason why, I believe, the infobox debate on this talk page has been so lengthy (I admit I haven't read all of it), is probably because no-one knows what the results or the forthcoming government will look like. There was a possibility that we could see a Labour-SNP coalition quite early on in the campaign before Miliband ruled it out and similar potential outcomes involving Plaid, DUP, UKIP etc. This is probably why the best bet BEFORE the election was to just have all of them in an Israeli-style infobox so that people could see all the parties that could be involved in the next government.

Firstly, I really don't believe the Israeli-style infobox is appropriate, and should be avoided unless absolutely inevitable. I honestly don't think Respect's single MP (if he wins) is going to be part of a coalition, and I might be right in saying that some other parties won more votes than Respect yet didn't get any seats. Isn't it unfair that Respect is on the infobox, while parties such as the English Democrats (who are likely to win more votes) are not? The UK doesn't have a proportionally representative system like Israel, meaning that you can't sort parties in descending order in terms of both votes and seats at the same time. A very simple example: UKIP look set to win about 14%, but just 3 seats. SNP set to win 5%, but around 50 seats. Sorting these parties in an Israeli-style infobox (in a descending fashion) is therefore going to be controversial and will probably spark a lot of debate after the election in terms of which order they are listed.


 * People who say UKIP first because they got the most votes: an Israeli-style infobox is probably there because people are more interested in seat distribution and how it influences a coalition.
 * People who say SNP first because they got the most seats: this is going to look plain weird, where a party with 5% is going to be followed by a party winning 14%. Rather odd, especially in the descending format of the Israeli-style infobox.

Also, it results in a substantial loss of information about percentage swing, leader names, pictures etc. A full list of parties and the seats they win is always going to be available in detail in the results section anyway, so why sacrifice such information on what is supposed to be a summary infobox to provide a mini replica of the results table? I can't also help adding that it simply looks rather ugly when flicking through the previous elections with a standard Con-Lab-Lib infobox and then suddenly arriving at this election with a sudden change of infobox format.

Conclusion: decide according to the outcome of the next government.


 * Labour minority: Two-party infobox with Con and Lab
 * Conservative minority:Two-party infobox with Con and Lab
 * Either party coalition with Lib Dems: Three party infobox with Con, Lab and Lib
 * Lab-SNP-Lib-Green-SDLP coalition: this is very very unlikely, but I think this is an example of when it is appropriate to use an Israel-style infobox or a 9-party standard infobox if applicable.

Criticisms
I fear some criticisms of my proposal will be: a) A minority con/lab government would be relying on support of smaller parties. How can just having the two parties in an infobox be justifiable in this case?
 * My response: a lab minority won't be looking to the SNP for support all the time. One day it might turn to the Lib Dems and one day maybe even the conservatives. It is simply unfair to include some parties which a minority government will look for support to while excluding others. Unless there is a formal negotiation/coalition between a minority government and a smaller party, I don't think we should include any of them on the main infobox. Simply because, for it to be fair and objective, you'll have to include none or all of them.
 * Also: Ed Miliband and David Cameron are the only two realistic party leaders who can be prime minister

b) You're only considering including the government parties and the main opposition in the infobox
 * This is not because I don't think other opposition parties should be excluded as a general principle, but because of how the outcome is going to look. Tories and Labour look set to win 260-290. They are then followed by the SNP on around 50, Lib Dems on around 30 and so on. The seats being won by parties apart from Con and Lab are substantially smaller in relation, apart from perhaps the SNP. This is why as I say above, it becomes an issue of either including one or all (such as Sinn Fein who don't even take their seats, single issue parties etc)

c) Exclusion of UKIP?
 * UKIP is exactly one of the problems. 3rd largest party in terms of votes but minuscule in terms of seats. Similar with the Greens. Fifth largest yet only one seat projected. This is why I've emphasised the best option to have a two-way infobox with the Prime Minister's Party and the Leader of the Main Opposition's party unless the Lib Dems are included in a coalition. Nub Cake (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you realise yourself that your proposals will be unworkable. The main drive to change the infobox has been instability due to different party supporters wanting "their" party included. It will be easier after the results are in but still not simple. Broadly we gained agreement that in the British representative parliamentary system we must sort by seats and not by votes. However this raises problems where you have parties like UKIP and Greens with lots of votes and not many seats. It is almost certain that we will need 5-10 parties in the infobox after the election to reach a stable position. Perhaps the best hope for UK electoral infoboxes is for a more proportional electoral system to be introduced in future and thus lessen these arguments!Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article for the 1918 election has six parties in the infobox, so it's not without precedence. Gsnedders (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer is simple, the election is all about who gets the seats. There should be six parties mentioned, Lib, Lab, Con, SDP, DUP, and PC (for a full visual effect). Also, Keep the absentee leaders pictures off and have the Parliamentary leaders in, as they are officers of the Commons, and Sturgeon and her ilk are most definitely NOT. I know that Sturgeon was in the debates, but she is NOT going to be an MP. Letting her in and her position as Leader are unprecedented. In the last election, Salmond was an MP. Also, someone should tear this whole thing down and start putting up a skeleton article which will be filled out with the election results...Ericl (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I definitely do not think my propositions will be unworkable at all... And I absolutely don't agree that we will need 5-10 parties. I'm not a supporter of the minor parties that are currently causing this whole dilemma, so I'm definitely not biased in favour or against any in what I'm trying to say. Although editors may have reached the consensus that seats should come before votes in UK election articles (and probably rightly so), we must accept that this causes some problems in itself when a party with around 14% of the vote (UKIP) is suddenly placed 6th, confusing and looking very odd to readers with relatively little knowledge of the first past the post system. If it is the case that most people are arguing over the infobox over party lines, then I'm sure an Israeli-style infobox will probably cause a huge second post-election debate between the English Democrats, UKIP supporters and others in terms of where their party should stand in the infobox. We know one thing for certain. Conservatives and Labour are going to come first or second, and both parties will have the most and second most seats in the Commons. The third place is where the dilema begins, because it will be UKIP in terms of votes and SNP in terms of seats. Fourth place is similarly contestable and so is fifth, sixth etc. This is why my proposal is to have a two-party Con-Lab infobox in the event of either party leading a minority government, thereby eliminating partisan debates between SNP, UKIP, Lib Dem supporters etc. I would like to reiterate that I think we should avoid the Israeli-style infobox at all costs, since it incurrs a frightful loss of information, does not conform to the previous UK general election articles and is simply a miniature replica of the results table available further down the article page that includes parties with both a miniscule number of votes and seats. A straight up Con-Lab infobox will eliminate partisan arguments from supporters of the smaller parties and will also solve the votes first or seats first dilema that may cause confusion to the objective reader. Nub Cake (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Fourth Party"?
Surely the Lib Dems are tied for 'fourth party' with the DUP? Both parties got eight seats in Parliament, yet only one is listed as being the 'fourth party'. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 21:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The LD were in power prior the election, so if there were only 3 parties listed, it should be Tories, Labour and LD, as there are four parties listed, it should still include the LD because they were voted out of power, thus indicating a change in the governing party coalition (ie, what people are likely wanting to read about, the change in power, what changed in the election). -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think a good argument can be made that UKIP should be in there too. Although absolutely insignificant in terms of parliamentary seats (one seat!) they were actually the third largest party in terms of national vote at 12.6%, way ahead of the SNP (4.7%) and Lib Dems (7.9%). See for data. -- The Anome (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no argument. I'm sorry, but the British parliamentary system is not proportional. It is based on winning constituencies, first-past-the-post. Ukip had a horrid result. Vote share is irrelevant. RGloucester  — ☎ 22:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's true ukip shuod not be included as they onley have one seat and it's seats that count not vot share the leb dems also problely shude not be included ever88.107.184.52 (talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the UKIP should be included, as they had a bad record of actually getting elected - only one seat for how ever many candidates they put forward. The Lib-Dems and the DUP fared much better, with eight seats each.


 * In the interest of symmetry in the infobox, maybe the sixth largest political party should also be included: Sinn Féin with four seats, although they don't represent their constituents in parliament. --24.88.64.22 (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if you want to includ shin fine then that is fine as they are included in the 1918 elction info box but I don't think they are segnificent Enoch the lib dems are at the botum of a resen blu cut of point 88.107.184.52 (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You may find this useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.35.58 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2015(UTC)

Aftermath - and unreported dismay
"We are going to have no shortage of meanness over the next five years. There is going to be meanness to the disabled, meanness to immigrants, there is going to be meanness to the poor, so all we’ve got left is to be compassionate to one another and get involved in causes we care about." Russell Brand

Despite reported comments, outlining fears that Tory policy is likely to have an increasingly negative impact on the lives of the poor, disabled and immigrants, the Aftermath section does not mention any such comments. In fact, it does not appear to contain any reaction at all! Should not this over-site be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.11 (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's "oversight" and no, it's not an oversight. Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for Russell Brand and others in his weird bubble. Argovian (talk) 15:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

And, hopefully, Wikipedia will never be a mouthpiece for the PM and or his weird policy? For whatever one’s view on Russell Brand, he did make a note-worthy point about the likely/possible 'meanness over the next five years”. Within an article about a general election, is it not reasonable that concerns and fears about government policy be highlighted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.58.11 (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * How is it specific to this article? Obviously those who oppose the Conservatives are going to voice their opposition to the result. It's just not encyclopedic. By all means add it to the Russell Brand article, about his reaction to the result. Argovian (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

“...The crisis of growing poverty among Britons who have been impacted by these reforms has been laid bare by a series of damning studies published in recent months. In April, hundreds of psychotherapists, counselors and mental health practitioners warned “malign” welfare changes are having a detrimental effect on Britons’ psychological and emotional wellbeing. An open letter, published by the Guardian, said the “profoundly disturbing” implications for Britons wrought by the coalition’s austerity policies were largely ignored in the general election campaign...” Russia Today, 11/05/2015

If the timely warning from Russell Brand is not of interest, news-worthy or "encyclopedic", then what about the report from RT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.108.221 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not encyclopaedic, and arguably not a reliable source. 86.145.151.207 (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Can someone produce evidence that RT is less reliable than other news outlets? Is it that Russia Today is "not a reliable source" - or not a reliable source of pro-Western/anti-Putin (dis)information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.111.203 (talk) 10:58, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lib Dems worst result since 1970, 1959 or 1951?
So far there seems to be a disagreement on whether the Lib Dem result was the worst since 1970, 1959 and 1951.
 * 2015: 7.9%, 8 seats
 * 1970: 7.5%, 6 seats
 * 1959: 5.9%, 6 seats
 * 1951: 2.5%, 6 seats

Unless I'm missing something, the most recent election where the Lib Dems did worse in terms of both seats and votes was 1970, so the statement in the lead should read  '...suffered their worst result since 1970' . Could the people who insist on reverting my edit to 1951 or 1959 please explain whether I'm missing something huge here? Here, have some references: Nub Cake (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Democrats were founded on 3 March 1988. Any stats prior to that date must be either for the old Liberal Party or the old SDP. – H T  D  15:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It's pretty widely accepted that the Liberal Democrats have continuity with the Liberal Party. Reliable sources bear that out. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm the one who changed it to 1951. The lead states "lowest share of the vote", which is certainly 1951 (2.5%) and not 1970 (7.5%), whereas your statement above talks about "worst result" which could mean all sorts of things. Besides, '51 was worse in terms of seats *and* share of the vote. Oxr033 (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Aaaaaaaah. I now see where you're coming from, but still not sure its right. 1951 may be their worst election result, but the statement doesn't talk about that. 7.9% is their worst result since last election that they got worse in, which is 1970 (again for both votes and seats). If we sey this is their worst result since 1951, we are saying that they've won better results in every election between 1951 and 2015, which isn't true because of 1959 and 1970? Nub Cake (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nub Cake. The last time the Liberal Democrats (though still as the Liberals) had a worse result than 2015 is, obviously, 1970. It's not just "worst result", @ Oxr033, it's worst result SINCE! You may have missed the word SINCE! ;) --Maxl (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I seeOxr033 (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * People in this discussion may be interested in this article's opening, by a historian of liberalism. Bondegezou (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Graphical composition bars on infobox
What does everyone think about the new graphical bars that represent the number of seats won on the infobox? Whoever uploaded it has already done it to the 2010, 2005 and 2001 articles. I'm personally not sure yet whether or not I like it but it is a welcome difference to the columns full of numbers and percentages. Nub Cake (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's an improvement. There are so many numbers in the infobox (which is supposed to be a summary!!) and this helps the important ones stand out. It also gives a minimal graphical representation of the percentage of seats won, which is doubly helpful. Number   5  7  16:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Its a confusion and does not add to the box, the numbers can be hard to read due to some of the colours used e.g. labour red or UKIP purple.Sport and politics (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Number 57, the infobox with just numbers and percentages can be quite overwhelming. Nub Cake (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think they make the infobox too busy: it becomes overwhelming with details and colours and shapes. An infobox is meant to be a succinct summary, not some elaborate construct full of different things. We've got a whole article outside the infobox: put all those extra details in the article, not the infobox!
 * That said, I oppose the switch back to the traditional infobox anyway. That was made during the heat of the results coming in and bypassed the lengthy consensus-building we'd been through to agree the previous infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 17:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The infobox is already far too busy with too many rows of figures. The coloured bars actually help numbers stand out and make it less confusing.
 * Which infobox to use is a different issue, but I really can't see how the current infobox is compliant with NPOV when it has the Lib Dems as the fourth party when they got far fewer votes than UKIP and have the same number of seats as another excluded party. Number   5  7  17:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is an addition for the sake of it. Pretty colours in the infobox is not a good thing, it creates an overly busy and confusing quick hit summary. So far it seems the addition i just because and not for any other reason. The pretty colours draw a focus only to that part of the infobox which is not good when trying to present the information in the rest of the infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is also not a place for NPOV discussions on individual parties in the infobox please start a fresh discussion on that. Please no one take the bait on UKIP and get drawn off topic. From what has been previously said there is a long standing consensus built up over a prolonged period of tome it may well be best to feed this in to those discussions. Can a link to those please be provided. Sport and politics (talk) 10:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

proportional maps
i have no idea how to do it myself so i appreciate im asking without contributing but would it be possible to make and use a 'proportional map' template? it would give so much more detail about party strength Zaq12wsx (talk) 22:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC) Hi, I have added a section United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015 - this might be what you were after Eelco de Vlieger (talk) 11:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency
I'm posting this here since the talk page for the 2010 results isn't active. For the creation of this article, I would like to start the discussion about that article before it's started. In contrast to the 2010 article, Results of the 2010 United Kingdom general election by parliamentary constituency, we should probably make some changes. I'd suggest we remove a column for the county, which looks incomplete and may be redundant by the region column. We should also remove a column for the BNP due to their electoral collapse, and separate the results for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I'm sure there are other possible changes that can be made, but these three alone would remove eight columns from most of the constituencies which would let the table fit into the page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's the first time I've seen that page, and it's hideous. Burn it with fire, burn it with fire! Yes to all of your changes. I'd suggest breaking up the table further, perhaps by region + NI, Wal & Scot. And add some introductory text, some colour - anything but an illegible data dump! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The advantage of having a single table is that the column sort works across the UK dataset, same applies to the totals at the bottom. Eelco de Vlieger (talk) 13:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to add to the page, needs someone to complete it
This table depicts how the constituencies changed hands between parties from the previous election in 2010 to this election in Great Britain, based on the table in the local elections last year (United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014). I thought this would be useful due to the gains and losses between Labour and the Conservatives.

Would everyone agree this should be included?

I would ask someone to adjust the colours, as I don't know how to do this.

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That looks lovely, thanks, and we could have a separate one for Northern Ireland too. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Conservative total should be 331? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Actually, Conservative total is 330 - for some reason BBC & others are counting 'Speaker' as a Conservative seat. --Mrodowicz (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because John Bercow was returned to the Commons as a Conservative. He's currently not the Speaker, as the post is vacant Yes, he was returned by his constituency as The Speaker and will remain as such at least until the 18 May re-election? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to make a seperate one for Northn Ireland too, I thoought not to include them in the same table in order to make it too clutered. I made the table before St Ives declared. Now 331. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are these tables going to be updated and added? They look really useful!
 * I propose a slight change to the format:


 * NB A Conservatives seem 1 too high and Lib Dems 1 too few for the last election (according to the table they work out at 307 and 56) Robertm25 (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be good to have a similar table for 'before election' as well as 'last election' Robertm25 (talk) 11:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Right, changes taken on board. Had a bit of time to look at it to see how to change the colours. The reason for the error was that when making the table at first I was using the BBC results page, which listed the Speaker as Conservative. Ammending that, the only way for the sums to add up is to add one to the Con gains from LD. I'd ask someone to check it before I add it to the page. Hopefully the layout now looks good.

Feedback appreciated MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

And the Northern Ireland Table updated to the same style:

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Ireland Table
Template table for Northern Ireland. Once again, I would ask someone to adjust the colours, as I don't know how to do that. As for whether the Speaker should be counted separately,I made the GB table using the BBC News results, which is why I came to 331 (330 before St Ives), but I leave for others to decide how Speaker should be included on the table.

MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Colors trick: Use. If the hex is changed, it is changed automatically everywhere too. – H T  D  15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SNP on all parties in Scotland

 * 1) Glasgow East
 * 2) Edinburgh West
 * 3) Aberdeen Scottish Conservative & Unionist Party offices
 * 4) South Lanarkshire, East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
 * 5) Glasgow
 * 6) Scotland

Labour on all parties in parts of London

 * 1) Bromley South
 * 2) Tower Hamlets
 * (The Tower Hamlets case refers to the mayoral election and is covered well on Wikipedia already. It has no relevance to the general election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

Labour on all parties in Lancashire

 * 1) Pendle, Brierfield and Reedley
 * 2) Pendal
 * 3) Lancashire

Labour against UKIP in parts of Kent

 * 1) Ramsgate
 * 2) Thanet South

Class War on all parties in Croydon South

 * 1) Croydon South

Labour in Wrecsam/Wrexham on independents and Plaid Cymru

 * 1) Wrecsam/Wrexham

Unknown on Labour in Worcester

 * 1) Worcester voter's home

Hampshire UKIP on Conservatives

 * 1) Hampshire

Thanet South UKIP on Labour

 * 1) Thanet South

Labour on Respect in Bradford

 * 1) Bradford W.

All on Darlington UKIP

 * 1) Darlington

All on all in Hackney

 * 1) Hackney N.
 * 2) Hackney S.

All on all in Oxford

 * 1) Oxford E.
 * 2) Oxford W.

All on all in the UK as a whole
850,000 struck off UK wide.

All on all towards ex-pats and overseas troopers
Ex-pats and overseas troopers stripped of votes or told to postal vote hopelessly to late.

Infobox again (again)
Sport and politics, above, rightly points out that discussion of what infobox to have is a broader question warranting its own section, so voilà...

We had many discussions in the run-up to the 2015 election as to what to do with the infobox given the rise of UKIP, the SNP and the Greens, and the collapse in the LibDems, while still respecting precedent and the presence of several Northern Ireland parties with seats. That discussion was lengthy and wide-ranging: highlights include Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015/Archive_2 and Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015/Archive_3. Debate also covered some other articles, e.g Talk:United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014.

Eventually, not very long before the election, discussion (see above: Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015) produced a consensus to switch to a new style of infobox (although after we did so, a few people then opposed the change). In brief, the traditional style with pictures of party leaders can only cover up to 9 parties, leading to endless arguments over who to leave out. The new style, developed from a model used on Israeli election articles, is more compact by dropping pictures and some other details, thus allowing all parties to be covered. This new infobox template is still quite new and being tweaked. It has, after discussion, been adopted for Next United Kingdom general election.

However -- soon after the results came out, as far as I remember -- this new infobox was replaced here with the old infobox, initially with just Con/Lab/SNP, which then became Con/Lab/SNP/LD/DUP and has now become Con/Lab/SNP/LD. Those changes do not seem to reflect a consensus, but there was a lot going on with this article; it was a busy time. Anyway... I suggest we return to the new style infobox, listing all parties that won any seats in the 2015 election. I am happy to go through my reasoning in depth, but I've said it all before in the links provided. Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * this info box is fitting for uk elections the problem with aney info box layout is that even the new style did not includ evrey party standing in the election as ther are lots of small partys and the debat about wher to dare the line and what ouder to put them in whoud hapen aney way the current info box workers fine given the voting system and the relates of elections to the house of comans where 3 party's have over 50 seats and partis like ukip have just 1 and will have lital impact when it come sto voting in the house of comans it is standard practis across all uk election pagers and coverage to include the partis with fuwe seats simply as others this page is abut the resutsls which put con lab and snp far Ahmed of aney other party so this in boxe shud remain peticuley as money of the other parteys dint Chang there reposition muche.88.107.184.52 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Gains and Losses in Infobox, and other discrepancies
Unless there is some weird Wikipedia rule of which I'm unaware, Reliable Sources normally report seat changes since the previous election, not since dissolution. As such the utterly confusing 'seats before' should be suppressed (or, if kept, should be clearly explained as seats at dissolution), and the changes figures should be corrected. I've done that for the Tory gains, and I'm now going to do it for the othersTlhslobus (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

However it seems there may be some weird Wikipedia rule, judging by the 2010 Infobox, so I've self-reverted pending clarification. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth it seems pretty obvious to me, at least, that "Seats before" means the seats held by the party just before this election, not the seats they gained in the previous election. — Nizolan  (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile there seems to be a need to fix discrepancies between the infobox (such as Tories 36.9%, swing 0.8%) and the detailed table (Tories 36.8%, swing 0.7%), as well as footnotes explaining such things as why infobox has Tories +28 seats and table has Tories +24, and explaining the Speaker is counted as 331st Tory seat in some sources, and that UKIP is 3rd in votes and DUP also has 8 seats. Also a fix and/or footnote on why the Table shows Tories up 24 since last election but UKIP down 1 (when they're down 1 since dissolution, but up 1 since the last election). Also the lead (and an infobox footnote) should say UKIP are up 9.5% (this is by far the biggest gain in votes in the election, but currently seemingly well tucked away in the 'small print'). I'd try doing all this myself, but my computer is misbehaving, so perhaps somebody else might try instead.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have amended this with regards to UKIP's gains as, illogical or otherwise, this is the established precedent for reporting gains and losses at UK General Elections: by-election gains are disregarded and changes are weighed against the last general election. Most likely this came about because by-election results are often somewhat atypical, occurring at a different point in the political cycle, garnering much lower turnouts and coming with the attached knowledge that voters know they are almost certainly not going to determine any changes to government, as outlined in Wikpedia's own article on UK by-elections BroSwerve (talk) 14:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Table of results
In the table of results, it lists UKIP as having lost one seat, and RESPECT also having lost one seat. These are based on by-election gains, and my understanding of UK general elections to most commentators, including how we record results on Wikipedia is that re-gaining seats lost in by-elections count as holds not gains. This leads to the second problem that the 'seats gained' and 'seats lost' totals should equal each other, but the seats gained totals 113, but seats lost totals 109, so these figures are wrong... MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right: we should follow general practice and show changes against the previous election. Bondegezou (talk) 13:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

In the table of results the total votes cast adds to 30,695,760, not 30,691,680 as shownDouglas169 (talk) 08:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We actually haven't been entirely consistent on this; for the 2010 and 2005 elections, there are distinct ‘Last election’ and ‘Seats before’ rows in the main infobox and gains and losses are calculated on the basis of the number of seats each party had at the dissolution of Parliament, but for the 2001 election and earlier, there is no ‘Seats before’ row at all and gains and losses are calculated on the basis of the number of seats each party won at the previous election. This is something we should probably try to work out on the talk page for WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom; it doesn't affect this election in particular. Esszet (talk) 20:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

New election result articles
User:MrPenguin20 has recently created United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Edinburgh), United Kingdom general election, 1997 (Edinburgh), United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire), United Kingdom general election, 2015 (Cornwall) &c. While I applaud MrPenguin20's boldness and diligence, it seems to me inappropriate to have so many spin-off articles. They are generally for small groups of constituencies, they are without reliable source citations (i.e. commentary or results describing those areas; I'm sure the numbers given are calculated from reliable sources) and may constitute WP:OR. There is no constitutional significance to these groupings. What do others feel? Would MrPenguin20 like to discuss his/her reasoning...? Bondegezou (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had largely created the pages after seeing there were several similar articles on Glasgow, and was aware there were similar articles for certain other regions/areas (e.g. Cornwall, West Yorkshire etc). I didn't create the Cornwall and West Yorkshire pages, but I did fill the results in for the latter, and made a couple of changes on the former. The results were compiled using the BBC News constituency results page, and for the West Yorkshire page I relied on the Yorkshire Post (it had a handy list of all the results per constituency).
 * I understand your point about having new pages for every conglomeration/region though. My creation of the Edinburgh pages was, like I said, largely driven in response to the Glasgow pages out of a desire to give an account of the politics of Scotlands capital, which in some ways is different to the national trend. That being said, I suppose a different approach (with less pages) could be to move the result breakdowns from these pages to the Politics of Edinburgh page? MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I prodded the United Kingdom general election, 2015 (West Yorkshire) article (its creator subsequently deprodded it). Personally I don't see the point in these articles. What particular relevance does the outcome of the West Yorkshire seats have? Number   5  7  11:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, unnecessary. Delete them all I say! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies, User:MrPenguin20, for my misattributions. That was careless of me. I like your suggestion to cover this sort of material on the Politics of Edinburgh article (or equivalents). However, I think that can be done better by finding a reliable source saying that the results in Edinburgh in some ways differ to the national trend rather than showing a breakdown of results. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Election sidebar
I've recently created a sidebar (see right) for the Turkish general election, 2015 that is due to occur next month. I was wondering whether creating something like this for this election would be something that people may like to see? We could include the 7 parties included in the dabtes under 'political parties and leaders', which could help stop arguments over whether parties such as UKIP should be included in the infobox or not. For Issues and developments we could include the EU referendum, Scottish independence, the 2008 economic crash, the welfare state etc. At the top where the Turkish one has articles about electoral fraud etc, we could include the results by constituency, target seats, MPs who stood down/lost their seats articles etc. I know this election has its own template to go at the bottom of the article, I'm of the view that a small sidebar just under the infobox could ease accessibility to other articles related to this election. Nub Cake (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As you say, we already have United Kingdom general election, 2015, so I think this would be overkill. I also very much doubt it would solve the infobox NPOV problem. Number   5  7  13:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I like the idea, Nub Cake. I think the article currently and United Kingdom general election, 2015 say too little about actual issues. I also think the current infobox at the top of the page is misleading. Bondegezou (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A potential draft of it is now located to the right. Nub Cake (talk) 15:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for putting that forward. The challenge, to echo User:Number 57, is about what to include in a NPOV manner. We're back to the hoary question of which parties to include (and I've long argued you need to include the Northern Ireland ones) and what issues should be the infobox is tricky... which is not to say that I don't like the general approach, because I do. Bondegezou (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Psephological demography
May I suggest it would be good to have some content on the demography of voting, e.g. how men and women or different age groups voted? This is a detailed post-election poll that may be of use. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Plus this on ethnicity and voting patterns. Bondegezou (talk) 09:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And this on how UKIP took votes from different parties and how it affected the result. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And this on turnout. Bondegezou (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Add number of lost deposits to results table?
It would be interesting to know the number of lost deposits, particularly for the major parties (clearly those down the list will be all the candidates).

I don't know though how easy this would be source and add. Robertm25 (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea if someone can work out how to do it. Some sources list Liberal Democrat lost deposits. AusLondonder (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this is a bad Idea as it does not add to the table and is potentially a POV addition. the above comment is highly POV and the information would have little meaning if added. Parties which lost more deposits than other stood candidates could invite POV inferences on that party. Sport and politics (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why there should be a POV issue. What this would show is 1) how good parties are at targeting seats where they would get a significant vote share and 2) for parties with candidates standing nationally a proxy for how evenly spread their vote is by highlighting in how many constituencies they failed to reach this threshold. Robertm25 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Conservative number - include speaker or not?

 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Number of seats the Conservatives won. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question - do we include the Speaker in with the Conservative total or not? The BBC does but the House of Commons doesn't. If the answer is no then the Conservative total should drop by 1. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That woudl be premature - you are assuming that the speaker will come from the ruling party and this is not always the case as the speaker is elected on a free vote by MPs. Stub Mandrel (talk) 13:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bercow has been re-elected in his constituency as Speaker. The Commons may choose a new Speaker soon, but for now Bercow is still Speaker. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I hadn't heard that Bercow had been re-elected.
 * But the article shows the position as vacant. Is that incorrect? Surely Bercow was re-elected as an MP, not "as The Speaker"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Bercow stood as "the Speaker seeking re-election". If he's re-elected Speaker when the House meets he won't count as a Conservative. If he were not to be re-elected Speaker, he still wouldn't be a Conservative. Therefore he shouldn't be counted as a Conservative now.85.255.232.55 (talk) 16:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was that on the ballot form in Buckingham (UK Parliament constituency)? The electorate vote for candidates, not for government posts or Commons positions. You're saying he's now stopped being a Conservative? I'd be interested to see your sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Here we see Bercow with his cute little "Bercow pin" standing next to the UKIP guy with his UKIP pin. This means he didn't run as a Conservative. I wanna see how the person that announced the result referred to Bercow's "party". – H T  D  17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I now see his article says " Prior to his election to Speaker, he was a member of the Conservative Party." So it seems he has stopped being a Conservative, at least until 18 May. It seems the electorate were as confused as me. He's not really an MP at all, is he, as only UKIP and the Greens could stand against him. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I understand, he gave up his Conservative Party "membership" when he was elected Speaker. Then in elections, the major parties don't run against him, as Speakers are supposed to be "neutral". See Speaker Denison's rule and Speaker of the House of Commons (United Kingdom): "If the current Speaker decides to contest a general election, he/she does not stand under a party label, but is entitled to describe himself/herself on the ballot as 'The Speaker seeking re-election', under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act." – H  T  D  17:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, so I'm not sure why he should be included in the 331 Conservative total. It seems to be a contradiction. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The Parliament itself reports 330 seats for the Conservatives (and 1 for the Speaker). That should be conclusive - Skuipers (talk) 09:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Touch of humour: Cameron has raised this exact question (video) in the House of Commons, addressing Bercow: "There was some confusion in the media as to whether my party had won 330 or 331 seats in the general election. It seems the media were unsure as to whether or not you're a Conservative". More seriously, though, I agree with Skuipers: We should go with what Parliament itself says: 330. Aridd (talk) 10:40, 20 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with 330 being the number. Ultimately, 331 is flat out incorrect. The Conservatives do not claim they have 331, the Speaker does not claim they have 331, and the official Parliament website does not claim they have 331. The news, as was demonstrated by Akridd, was mistaken. John Bercow has not been a Conservative for many years. Let's quickly eliminate the factual inaccuracies. —  Richard  BB  17:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you say "quickly"?? There's another discussion below in "Bercow in results tables". Some editors have been very reluctant to go against the sources, like BBC, used in the article. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of the other discussion, given that the first link in "331" heading leads here -- although, yes, I quite clearly said "quickly". —  Richard  BB  20:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My question about speed was a sarcastic note about being two weeks late. I'd be quite happy to see a figure of 330 used consistently throughout. It would obviate the need for the cumbersome explanatory notes. But the problem with squaring that with the sources used remains. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:12, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bercow was sitting on the Conservative benches before being elected speaker. Furthermore, the election results sources, which we use for the election results, say 331. I understand the reasons why some people prefer using the number 330, but it needs to be stated that we are bound to report what is said in the sources. The sources that report the election results, which include the BBC (officially endorsed by the Electoral Commission), say 331. We can't just add or take away seats and votes and calculate our own percentages. If you think that notes on the bottom of the infobox saying 'figure does not include speaker' are confusing and cumbersome, then how confusing would it be for a reader to have seen the election results (36.9%, 331), and then came on to Wikipedia to read about it, only to find that the page reports entirely different figures? We need to stick to the sources. Nub Cake (talk) 14:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where he sat before he was speaker is not relevant. Some politicians change parties between elections. User:Aridd suggests that "Parliament itself says: 330", Surely that's the definitive source here? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is an important point. By Nub Cake's logic, we should report UKIP has zero seats. John Bercow did not stand as a Conservative this election. But fine, let's go with what the sources say: the official parliament website, which is gospel as far as this is concerned, states it's 330. Parliament supersedes the media. They even said in the first session of parliament that the media erroneously counted Bercow. —  Richard  BB  17:39, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea how you've reached the conclusion about UKIP and also they have one seat, not zero. Also, the Parliament website is not a gospel. The parliament website reports the number of seats, which is now 330 since Bercow was, expectedly, elected Speaker last Monday. The Parliament website does not report the election results, it reports the seat distribution, so by all means use it as the source on the House of Commons article. This article is about the election. To report the election results, the first and foremost source we should use is the Electoral Commission. The electoral commission endorses the BBC's Election 2015 page for the results, which says 331. This, not the Parliament website, is the definitive source here, so this is what we should be using. Again, I'm not sure why Douglas Carswell, or UKIP, is relevant here. Furthermore, the figure of 36.8% is categorically wrong, regardless of which source is being used. Nub Cake (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Only because someone suggested that we take account of John Bercow's status (and party membership) before he had to resign it to become Speaker. It was just an example. There is one UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, and his former Tory membership is irrelevant. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2015 (UTC) p.s. what if the BBC got it wrong?
 * Apologies, but I'm still not seeing your point. The fact that Douglas Carswell was a Tory is recorded in the 'seats won' section of the 2010 general election, as he was one of the 307 elected. The fact that he defected to UKIP means that in the 'seats before' section of this article, he is one of the 5 MPs that the Tories lost, which is why the 'seats before' row in the infobox for the Tories reads 302. With this same logic, Bercow's election should be recorded within the 331 for the Tories, but now that he has been elected speaker, this should be represented in the 'current seats' section of the Next United Kingdom general election article, where the 'current seats' for the Tories should now read 330. But this is not the key point I'm making. The point I'm making is that the relevant sources read 331, therefore we as wikipedians are obliged to report the results as 331. I've also been looking at the Parliament website source that people keep referring to (here). The title on the Parliament page reads Current State of the Parties. The current state of the parties will change throughout the next five years, it does not reflect the number of MPs elected in the 2015 general election. Neither does it give any vote shares or percentages. In this sense, this is not even a relevant source for this article, let alone a 'gospel'. Nub Cake (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whatever future changes occur alters nothing. On the day of the election (and throughout the whole campaign, of course) BERCOW WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE. That's it. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, that wasn't really my main point anyway. And unfortunately, saying 'that's it' does not supersede what the official election results say. Once again: the sources we need to use here is this link, as stated clearly by the Electoral Commission. This source says 331 and 36.9%. That's it. The Parliament source that is referred to as a 'Gospel' is clearly titled Current state of the parties. This has absolutely nothing to do with the seats actually won on May 7th and is therefore completely irrelevant. I'm honestly going to have to change the percentage back from 36.8% to 36.9% at least, since this is categorically wrong in every respect in that not a single source says 36.8%. You can't just calculate your own percentages! Nub Cake (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that percentages and numbers of seats should correlate. I think that's a secondary issue. But you still seem to think that Bercow won a Conservative seat on 7 May, because that's what the BBC said? Yet he didn't even stand as "a Conservative". The other major parties could not field candidates aginst him because of that. Maybe Wikipedia requires us to blindly follow what is considered a reliable source. But, as far I'm concerned, 331 Conservative seats may be fully verifiable but it's also fully wrong. That's my "main point". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether I think Bercow was elected a Conservative or not doesn't matter. And yes, I think the number should be 331 because that's what the BBC said. What the BBC says, as the official reported of the results on behalf of the Electoral Commission, unfortunately supersedes what you think 'as far as you're concerned'. It is not fully wrong. If it was, the BBC and virtually all other media reporting on the election would have corrected it. Nub Cake (talk) 10:45, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think my terribly slanted subjective view may be shared by others. You're argument still seems to be "it's right because that's what the BBC said." I'd be interested to hear any other explanation of why you think it's correct. I can't remember a previous situation where Wiki policy of verifiability over truth has been so obvious, and so unfortunate. I'm not sure that any further discussion between us will be productive. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:53, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With due respect, I don't need any other explanation as to why the number 331 is correct. The fact that the official results page of the election clearly states the Conservative total as 331 is, as stated here and here, conclusive. You may disagree with Wikipedia's rules, but that's a different debate that I'm not getting involved in. You may disagree with the BBC, in which case write to them to seek clarification. Yet as long as the Electoral Commission says it is 331, it is 331. When it comes to whether it is your view or the official Electoral Commission figures that takes priority, it is regrettably yet undoubtedly the Electoral Commission's. Blindly and continuously stating what you think is the 'truth' and claiming that the BBC have just got it completely wrong is not aiding your argument at all, and neither is saying 'BERCOW WAS NOT A CONSERVATIVE' in capital letters. I'm not certain why it is so appalling to simply use the figure 331, while changing the note at the bottom of the infobox so that it says  'Official Electoral Commission figures, includes the Speaker John Bercow in the Conservative total'  I'm also quite confused since in the Bercow in results tables section further down, you and I were in agreement that the official sources took precedent and should be respected. Nub Cake (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've changed my mind (I can amemnd the thread below if you wish me to). Not only did I use capital letters, I also used BOLD! So there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * How convincing. Well since we are getting nowhere then all I can suggest is we file a request for a neutral third opinion over how to proceed, or a dispute resolution if that also proves to be inconclusive. Unless you have something to add, I'll get going with filing the requests. Nub Cake (talk) 13:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll use LARGE TEXT next time. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

If anyone here can list 331 Conservative MPs I will eat my hat faster than Paddy Ashdown. —  Richard  BB  21:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

Bercow in results tables

 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Number of seats the Conservatives won. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

John Bercow appears in the summary table as speaker, giving a Conservative total of 330, but not in the full table where the Conservative total becomes 331. Bercow was eleceted as the Speaker, not as a Conservative. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I was wondering whether the 331 shown in the BBC results table does include the Speaker? The table also shows that one 'other' has been elected but this may be an independent in northenr Ireland. Nub Cake (talk) 18:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems it does include him. The BBC full table doesn't mention the Speaker, so I assume he's included in the 331. I had also assumed that the "Other" seat in the list is the Independent Sylvia Hermon. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks for clearing it up. Maybe it currently includes him because Bercow hasn't formally yet been elected speaker by parliament. Nub Cake (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha, I'm not sure is that's good reason for including him or excluding him! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe some constitutional precedent that the speaker is partisan until formally elected by parliament or something. He's coloured blue on the BBC's map. You'll probably know better than me. Nub Cake (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah well, if Auntie has coloured him in blue, that's decided it then! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See discussion at Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_general_elections
 * Thanks, that's a useful discussion. Do you think any consensus emerged there? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * But now neither tables show him? But the total is still 650? Would it help to enter a name for "Others" and for "Independent" in each table? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My view on that is that is not relevant to the reporting of the election results – all sources agree with 331. What happens after the election, in terms of the Speaker, I don't think is relevant to the immediate election results that this article reports. So the correct number is 331. Anything else strikes me as WP:OR-y... --IJBall (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The info box now clearly explains that the 331 includes Bercow. If he's not re-elected in the house as Speaker, he will revert to being a Conservative (one assumes). At least we've coloured him grey on the map. And I see he now appears again in the large table as the Speaker. I'm just saying it would be less confusing if he also had his own entry in the summary table as the "Speaker" (and I'd suggest that "Others" should say "Independent", i.e. Sylvia Hermon). At least then everything would line up? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And now we're back to 330 in the info box and 331 in the results table..... Martinevans123 (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --IJBall (talk) 19:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The map note also now fixed. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC) But I still think the Conservative totals in the two tables should match!?
 * Actually, I've reworded that 'note' a little (it was confusing once the number was changed to 331) – hopefully it's clearer now. As for the table lower down, another 'note' could be added to clear up the "331 vs. 330+1" discrepancy. And there already is a 'note' in the lower table to that effect... --IJBall (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, there is a note for the full table. I've now added yet another a note for the summary table, although I'm not sure it's in the best place. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * While it makes sense to not include him in the Conservative vote share on the full results table, its probably best to go with what every single major news site is saying in terms of the vote share on the infobox. Especially when the country's electoral commission points to the BBC's results page and the BBC gives the Tories 11,334,920 with 36.9%. Nub Cake (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's how we have it, yes? Personally, I don't see how that figure should be 331 anywhere - not only did he not stand as a Conservative, but the other two main parties could not even stand against him. Another "quaint anachronism" of our wonderful electoral system I guess. But we are indeed tied to ("the most") reliable sources. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am as confused as most people. What matters is whether the official results count Bercow as a Conservative or as a speaker. The BBC seems to count him as a bit of both, colouring his constituency blue and counting him in with the Tories, but when you hover over his constituency it says 'SPE HOLD'. So what it seems to me is that they are saying that yes he's the speaker, but the speaker's a Tory. We know that the speaker is in fact non partisan, but does he only truly become non-partisan when he is officially elected speaker by the House of Commons? What might be the best thing to do is use the figure 331 in the infobox simply because the official results and all the other main news site sources say so, but then add a note that this figure does include the speaker's seat. This might be the best way to do it without confusing people and also keeping to what official sources are saying? Nub Cake (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There are arguments on both sides. The Commons can't conduct any business until they have elected a Speaker, so Bercow being a Tory until then is slightly immaterial. The Speaker can decide on tied-votes, but I don't think he's under the control of the Chief Whip. I was hoping for consistency across info box, all tables and the article text. Maybe that's too much to hope for. What do other editors think? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't think its right to add or subtract and do our own calculations with the vote share while all other sources (including the official one endorsed by the Electoral Commission) has included the Speaker's votes in the Conservative tally. Whatever decision is taken, I think it needs to respect the official sources. Nub Cake (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree. Are you saying that, because of that, consistency is impossible? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to say that the BBC contradicts itself, and indeed, since Parliament itself says that the Speaker is not a Conservative, he should not be counted as one here. The Electoral Commission did endorse the BBC's results, but as I've said before, they contradict themselves, and it seems that any generally reliable source that includes the Speaker as a Conservative is simply wrong.  It may help to look at the pages for previous elections (2005, 2010); they all list the Speaker separately even though he hadn't been formally elected Speaker yet. Esszet (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * See also discussion at Talk:List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2015. Alekksandr (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'll try and return within 24 hours, by when a "sound consensus" will surely have been reached). (lol) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps someone should write to the BBC and ask them if they meant not to include the Speaker as a Conservative? Esszet (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What are the objections to giving the BBC's results in both the infobox and results tables with Bercow included in the Tory tally, and then adding a note saying 'results include the Speaker John Bercow'. This would simply be the opposite of the current situation, where there are notes by the Conservative votes (and seats in the infobox) saying that the speaker isn't included.


 * Apart from this, I think the only other way of rectifying the problem is by doing something like this.

!style="background-color:#E9E9E9" class="unsortable"| !style="background-color:#E9E9E9;text-align:center;" |Political party !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Leader !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Candidates !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Number of votes !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Elected !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Seats gained !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Seats lost !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Net change in seats !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |% of seats !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |% of votes !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Change in % of vote
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * style="background-color:" rowspan="2"| || Conservative || David Cameron || 647 || 11,300,303 || 330 || 38 || 10 || +28 || 50.8 || 36.8 || +0.7
 * style="height: 4px;"| Speaker || John Bercow || 1 || 34,617 || 1 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0.2 || 0.1|| 0.0
 * Ed Miliband||631||9,344,328||232||22||46||−24||35.7||30.4||+1.5
 * Nigel Farage||624||3,881,129||1||0||1||-1||0.2||12.6||+9.5
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * Nigel Farage||624||3,881,129||1||0||1||-1||0.2||12.6||+9.5
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * colspan="12"|
 * }


 * If this doesn't work out, then it probably won't be too much of a problem if the infobox gives 36.9% and 331, with the note at the bottom of the infobox reading 'Figure includes the Speaker, detailed results are available in the results section'. This both justifies and explains the lack of consistency with the results table. The results table can then remain as it is now with the speaker and the Conservatives separate? Nub Cake (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: If there is any support for changing the results table as above, then this alternative seems to be a better option, since it preserves the natural flow of the table (as in Labour comes below Con, not Con then Speaker then Labour).

!style="background-color:#E9E9E9" class="unsortable"| !style="background-color:#E9E9E9;text-align:center;" |Political party !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Leader !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Candidates !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Number of votes !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Elected !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Seats gained !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Seats lost !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Net change in seats !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |% of seats !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |% of votes !style="background-color:#E9E9E9" |Change in % of vote Nub Cake (talk) 22:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * - style="text-align:center;"
 * style="background-color:" rowspan="2"| || Conservative || David Cameron || 647 || rowspan="2"|11,334,920 || rowspan="2"|331 || rowspan="2"|38 || rowspan="2"|10 || rowspan="2"|+28 || rowspan="2"|50.9 || rowspan="2"|36.9 || rowspan="2"|+0.8
 * style="height: 4px;"| Speaker || John Bercow || 1
 * Ed Miliband||631||9,344,328||232||22||46||−24||35.7||30.4||+1.5
 * Nigel Farage||624||3,881,129||1||0||1||-1||0.2||12.6||+9.5
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * Nigel Farage||624||3,881,129||1||0||1||-1||0.2||12.6||+9.5
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * Nick Clegg||631||2,415,888||8||0||48||-48||1.2||7.9||-15.1
 * colspan="12"|
 * }
 * colspan="12"|
 * }


 * 1) Parliament itself (as well as previous election pages; see above for links) does list the Speaker separately 2) we can just write to the BBC and try to resolve this discrepancy. Esszet (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I was just experimenting with possible alternatives and compromises. By all means write to the BBC, though with it and all other main news sites giving the same result, I'm beginning to think that they know something we don't - such as some constitutional convention that the speaker remains partisan and is elected with his former partisan allegiance until formally elected by the Commons or something. Anyway, there's no harm in using the BBC results on the infobox (with a note saying it includes the speaker and that the detailed results are available in the results) and keeping the full results table as it is with the Speaker separate. In fact, it would be better. Nub Cake (talk) 23:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still in favor of listing throughout the article the Conservatives as having 330 seats; it simply wouldn't make sense to include the Speaker with them in one place but not in another. I've written to the BBC, so hopefully we'll be able to get some sort of clarification on this. Esszet (talk) 23:59, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It appears that I should've read this page before writing to them; it says:


 * "The Speaker is a neutral figure in Parliament, so Mr Bercow is no longer a member of the Conservative Party as he was before his election to the role (by parliament)."


 * "However, for the purposes of calculating the number of seats belonging to each party - and calculating those held, gained or lost by each party - Mr Bercow's seat is regarded as being a Conservative constituency as he won it for the party in 1997, 2001 and 2005 before being elected speaker."


 * Since the BBC explicitly acknowledges that the Speaker is not a Conservative but includes him in the Conservative seat and vote tallies anyway, I think we have a little leeway in deciding exactly how to report the results. Since a very authoritative source – namely, Parliament itself (see above) – does not list him as a Conservative, I say we list him separately. Esszet (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See Chairman of Ways and Means. "Once appointed, both the Chairman of Ways and Means and the Deputy Chairmen follow the same tradition of neither speaking nor voting on any matter before the House (unless a casting vote is required). Unlike the Speaker, though, they remain members of their political party and campaign in general elections as party politicians. The Chairman and Second Deputy Chairman are elected from the opposite side of the House to the Speaker, while the First Deputy Chairman comes from the same side. Because the four do not vote (except to break a tie), this effectively pairs the occupants of the chair (their presumed support for their side cancelling each other out), which means no party loses a voting advantage on account of having one of the four drawn from its ranks." My own understanding (FWIW) is that this is the basis for counting the Speaker as a member of his former party. I.e. the Conservatives won 331 seats, including sitting Speaker John Bercow and sitting First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Eleanor Laing.  Others won 319 seats, including sitting Chairman of Ways and Means Lindsay Hoyle (Labour). Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means Dawn Primarolo (Labour) stood down, and on the basis set out above will be replaced by an Opposition member. If you count the four of them as members of their parties, 331 - 319 = a majority of 12.  If you do not count the four of them as members of their parties, 329 - 317 = a majority of 12. See also http://www.election.demon.co.uk/strengths.html - 'The right of David Boothroyd to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted' - he is the author of The History of British Political Parties, so I suggest that that makes that site RS. By the time Deputy Speakers had been elected on 9th June 2010, Labour had suspended the whip to Eric Illsley. And by the time the delayed polls had taken place in 2005, Patsy Calton had died.  So it looks as if 2001 was the last time that the 4 presiding officers were selected from a full-strength House. That page gives a Labour majority of 167 'at the 2001 Election (7th June 2001)', dropping to 166 on 13th June when Michael Martin was elected as Speaker, but returning to 167 on 20th June when the Deputy Speakers were chosen. I therefore suggest that the Speaker and three Deputies (when elected/chosen) should all be counted as members of their parties/previous parties, with a note explaining that this is being done, and why. Alekksandr (talk) 14:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Upon further examination of our results tables for past elections, it appears that we haven't been entirely consistent on this; the Speaker is listed separately for all previous elections going back to 1997, but for elections prior to that, he isn't. I'm still in favor of listing him separately; he is not, I repeat, not a member of any political party.  If we wish to achieve total unambiguity on the issue, we can simply do what other editors have done for previous elections (see here for an example): include in the main infobox a footnote that says that the figure does not include the Speaker. Esszet (talk) 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the inconsistency arises from British Electoral Facts 1832-1999, compiled and edited by Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher (Ashgate 2000), PP xviii and 68. P xviii contains an introductory note that 'Until 1997 the Speaker has been regarded as a candidate of the party he represented before his appointment. For the 1997 general election the votes cast for the Speaker are included among 'Others'.' P 68 contains a table where the Speaker is shown as a Conservative in the two 1974 elections, as Labour in 1979, not at all in 1983 (George Thomas had retired), as a Conservative in 1987, not at all in 1992 (Bernard Weatherill had retired) and as an Other in 1997. Alekksandr (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems to account for the inconsistency. But it's not clear whether or not there is yet any consensus here about how the results are presented in the article. It seems we are driven to show 331 as the Conservative total by the reliable sources - BBC and The Guardian. My main reservation is that the 331 in the summary table (and the votes bar beneath it) is not qualified with any note. Do the other interested editors think the article has to change at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said before, the BBC explicitly acknowledges that he isn't a Conservative (see above), so I think we have a little leeway in deciding exactly how to report it. Esszet (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Repeating here what I said elsewhere: Yes, I agree with 330 being the number. Ultimately, 331 is flat out incorrect. The Conservatives do not claim they have 331, the Speaker does not claim they have 331, and the official Parliament website does not claim they have 331. The news, as was demonstrated by Akridd, was mistaken. John Bercow has not been a Conservative for many years. Let's quickly eliminate the factual inaccuracies. —  Richard  BB  20:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

About your Third Opinion request: A request for a Third Opinion in regard to this dispute has been removed / declined because 3O's are only for disputes between exactly two editors and there are far more than that involved here and in the related discussion above. If dispute resolution is needed, consider DRN, Formal Mediation, or a RFC. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 14:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC) (3O volunteer)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

331

 * The following discussion has been closed. This discussion has been closed because multiple sections on this talk page were discussing the same issue, so a centralized section has been started to discuss it. Please make any comments on the issue in the new section: Number of seats the Conservatives won. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a mistake. According to the BBC the Conservatives won 331 seats and not just 330 as given in the list! --Maxl (talk) 08:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please eee and . – H  T  D  08:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. 

Popular Vote
Can you check why there are small differences in the figures in the main 4-party Infobox and the Election Results sections, please? IT would also be useful to have a figure for the total actual electorate and an estimated total potential electorate to assess how many no-shows and no-registered there were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.238.93 (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

House of Commons Briefing Paper CBP-7186
The provisional results were collated for House of Commons Briefing Paper CBP-7186. You can find them at the following links
 * Overview
 * Full report
 * Summary results
 * Full results

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Gallagher Index
I placed the index in that section in order to place it near the bottom of the page. There are all sorts of graphs along the right hand side of the article, so I placed it there so as not to disturb them. As for the graph itself, there are a couple of dozen of them on various different election pages including the UK election ones. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Gallagher_Index --One Salient Oversight (talk) 04:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) eg United Kingdom general election, 1992
 * I think it looks really tacky to have a screenshot of just something you made in Excel, and we may even have some WP:OR problems with it. Unless it is actually discussed in the article, I think it should be removed; that also goes for all other instances where it has been used (and of those couple dozen, it looks like you created all or most of them). Inks.LWC (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is difficult, however the data it uses is available from the article itself, and the algorithm can be found on the Gallagher Index page itself. That's probably not enough to satisfy WP:OR. I vaguely remember there being a Wiki for stuff like this. Is there? (i'm now investigating alternatives to this) --One Salient Oversight (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "a Wiki for stuff like this"? Inks.LWC (talk) 10:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Number of seats the Conservatives won
Currently the article is very inconsistent with whether the number of seats won by the Conservatives was 330 or 331 (i.e., whether John Bercow, the Speaker, should be included in that number). I have no preference between the two, but whatever we decide on should be uniform across the article. Even more importantly, the total number of MPs in the tables should add up to 650, not 649 or 651, which seems to be happening as people just keep changing the numbers. I see three plausible options for what we can do: Apart from that, there does not seem to be a fourth logical option, but I do not claim to have a monopoly on logic, so if I have missed other options, please feel free to point them out. My goal here is to help establish a consensus. I am more than happy to close this discussion once it has run its course; however, if anybody would like to solicit outside help to close the discussion, that is fine as well. ;Inks.LWC (talk) 04:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A - do not include Bercow in the Conservatives' number, meaning they would be listed as having won 330 seats
 * Option B - include Bercow in the Conservatives' number everywhere in the article, including in the large "Summary of the May 2015 House of Commons of the United Kingdom results" table
 * Option C - include Bercow in the Conservatives' number everywhere in the article other than the large "Summary of the May 2015 House of Commons of the United Kingdom results", listing him separately there
 * Option A - Bercow is not a Conservatives. He did not campaign for the Conservatives. He was not elected as a Conservative. He can vote only if there is a tie. The Conservatives won 330 seats. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A. The Conservatives won 330 seats.  Anyone who says different is wrong (and therefore, by definition, unreliable).  Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And let's have none of that nonsense about "the State of the Parties figure may change and so is unreliable". Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A - Bercow did not stand as a Conservative candidate. He stood as "Speaker seeking reelection". He ceased to be a member of the Conservative Party in 2009. After the election and before the Commons confirmed Bercow as Speaker, the Parliament website reported 330 seats for the Conservatives. Aridd (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option C - The Parliament website link does not give the election results, it is not a relevant source because it says Current state of the parties. This has nothing to do with the state of the parties as it stood on 8 May 2015. It may be reliable, but it is not relevant. The official election result source, as endorsed by the Electoral Commission, says 331. Therefore according to Verifiability we need to report it as such. Would editors who have the attitude of 'anyone who disagrees is wrong' please note that the BBC carries a bit more verifiability than their own subjective opinion? Nub Cake (talk) 15:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The Parliament website on 8 May indicated 330 seats for the Conservatives, and 1 for the Speaker. In doing so, it was reporting the results of the election. And it's the most authoritative source. Further, the BBC itself says explicitly that Bercow is not a member of the Conservative Party, and that it (the BBC) factors his seat artificially in with the Conservatives merely to look at statistical trends. (I.e., so as not to depict it as a seat "lost" by the Conservatives.) Lastly, I've been onto the website of the Electoral Commission, and as far as I can see they don't have a page listing the number of seats per party. And in the list of results per seat, they give Bercow's affiliation as "Speaker seeking reelection". In other words, the Electoral Commission does not list Bercow as a Conservative. Aridd (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can see what you're saying about the Current state of the parties not being a definitive source for the election result. But you seem to be suggesting that, becasue of this, although Bercow is not a Conservative now, he might have been at the time of the election. That seems quite ridiculous. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A As stated above, Bercow did not run as the Conservative candidate (see BBC results page). Number   5  7  09:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A We can put comments only seen on editing or footnotes visible in the main text to clarify this point to readers and editors. Bondegezou (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Option A Though Bercow was originally a Conservative, the Speaker is officially neutral and does not represent any party, so he technically stood as an independent for Buckingham, not a Conservative. Indeed, Bercow's own article says, correctly "Prior to his election to Speaker, he was a member of the Conservative Party". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know if this helps or hinders, but there is no single official source. Each MP is elected for a constituency, the votes are as per the Returning Officer for that constituency. That's as far as it goes. The BBC then tot it up, but they are no more or less official than ITN, you, me or your granny. The BBC have made slight mistakes before with the totals (they used to be a bit screwy with European Parliament election results), so they are neither official nor exact. The Electoral Commission will release a total of seats later in the year, and the House of Commons Library will issue a report on the election (including vote totals) next year. That's the closest to "official" as you are going to get. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 00:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is calculating the majority. Because the Speaker and deputies don't vote in the Commons, though the deputies remain party members outside the chamber and often return to parties inside it, it gets confusing calculating the majority at a glance if only some are subtracted. Currently the Speaker and three deputies are drawn two each from government and opposition so there's no impact on the majority (a consequence, IIRC, of some tight parliaments where governments either had to reduce slender majorities even further or lure an opposition MP to the chair - see Roderic Bowen for one case) but the deputies aren't known until the new Parliament. This creates the inelegant mess with the only one of the four known about in advance. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Very true, but all of which can be noted and explained in a footnote or the main text. There is no one "true" answer to the majority: there are several which are all correct. The way to deal with this is to explain the differences. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there any objection to me closing this discussion? I have intentionally remained impartial, so that I would not be considered "involved" for the purpose of closing the discussion; however, if anyone would like me to request another person who has not taken any part in this discussion to close it, I would be happy to do so. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)