Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

2010 election

 * This has (quite rightly) now been moved and effectively turned into a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010. However we may have to consider when to turn this on the general election after 2010.  We should probably do this around the time when the 2010 election is completed, but we may need to consider exactly when this is the case. PatGallacher (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The last one was begun two days after the election, on the 7th; this is what it looked like by the next day, after some speculative material was removed. A template? Shimgray | talk | 18:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Any time after ten o'clock on the Thursday, I reckon. Wereon (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Really, from the point that votes can first be cast on election day the 2010 general election is no longer the 'next' general election; it is the 'ongoing general election'. From the point of view of actually having any sort of article, I'd argue that this would require us to know the result of the 2010 g.e., so we could have something very similar to the diff proivded by Shimgray above. --Pretty Green (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Name
Following the passage and Royal Assent of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, the next general election will take place in May 2015 unless there is a vote of no confidence and a new government cannot be formed. Should, therefore, this article be renamed United Kingdom general election, 2015? --109.144.219.27 (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Target seats
Is there anyone who can put a target seats table in, incorporating the seats? Something like here on the previous election? - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010&oldid=352999255 --Screen42 (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Some refs are needed here. I've just tagged it accordingly, but don't see myself tracking down any sources myself for the moment. -- Trevj (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Which election?
The subject of this article is a little unclear, but I think it's meant to be about the general election following the current one (United Kingdom general election, 2010). That seems somewhat premature to me, given that that election hasn't been held yet, but I guess there's no harm in creating it now - while it's highly unlikely there will be an election on 11th June 2010 as this article currently claims(!), there will be another one sooner or later. The previous election article was created the day after the 2005 election, as can be seen from this oldest version:

I think the current name of this article is a bit unhelpful, though - UK general elections are not usually referred to by number. It should probably be renamed, as soon as the current election has been held, to Next United Kingdom general election - the previous title of the article on that election, before it became clear it would take place in 2010. Robofish (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

'That all sounds sensible. Thanks for your corrections. WikiWebbie (talk) 15:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually disagree. Once the year of the election is confirmed, then the year should replace the number in the name. Until then, however, I prefer its current name. Calling it the 'next United Kingdom general election' would lead to countless different elections going by that name, in the future. I think that it would be better if we kept that as a redirect to whatever the next election is at the time. The history of the 'next United Kingdom general election' would become so corrupt if we kept having different elections under that name. I'd like it more if there was one separate page for each election. '55th' is forever; it will never change, unlike 'next'. Red  v  Blue  11:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to remove any references implying this was the next election and removed the information from the 2005 elections as completely out of date. I'm not sure this article is of much use other than to confuse people who stumble here instead of the current election.  Only 3 weeks until it is correct however so it may as well be left, though it will still be pretty useless for a number of years. |→ Spaully τ 12:28, 14 April 2010 (GMT)

Last possible date
Does anyone have a source for the last possible date given (the Wednesday)? By my reckoning it should be the following day, because May 25, 2015 is a bank holiday. Wereon (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And presumably "midnight on 17 May" means the midnight at the end of 17 May, rather than the one at the beginning? Wereon (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Am intrigued by the source cited. Has anyone actually read it? It makes it clear that the next election need not be until 2018. The law requires that an election is called within 3 years of Parliament expiring? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.15.144 (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. In fact, it might be longer than that: despite what the law says, I'm not sure a judge can force HM to issue writs. We are making an assumption that the writs for the election are issued on the same day as dissolution takes place; I'm not sure when the last time was when that wasn't the case. Wereon (talk) 02:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Issues with page
This article seems to sythesize a lot, including adding info that doesnt fit here. the issue of leadership is pure speculation and where it is not it belongs to the 2010 page. The boundary changes are as per the 2010 page. One doesnt need to add info for the sake of it just to make the page look longerLihaas (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Why wasn't there a link on the 2010 page? I tried to start this up ''three times" yesterday and had the darned thing taken down. a link would have saved me a lot of work. Ericl (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential for two General Elections in 2010
It is not out of the question that we may have two General Elections this year, as happened in 1974. Might be a good time to consider what to do if the current Parliament does not survive the year. Safiel (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article name would then reflect the month of the year in which the election took place, as what happened in 1910 and 1974.--Britannicus (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nick Clegg shouldn't be under 3rd party; he's the deputy PM for crying out loud
I know this article is speculative in nature but for god's sake can we just put nick clegg under cameron. Cameron is the PM and Clegg is the deputy PM ; why in the world would this article have them appear to all be against each other. Also, Harriet Harmen is the leader of labour right now; just put her picture up. The position of labour leader certainly isn't "vacant" --Fshoutofdawater (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The nature of coalition politics is that the parties will separate and fight each other at the next election. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

That's cute: Fishiehelper2. Did you seriously get a user name just for that? Anyway... I'm not naive I know that it is very fragile. I'm simply saying, to put it like they are against each other already is assuming something (even if it is a good assumption). Isn't wikipedia supposed to be neutral and just state what the situation is currently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshoutofdawater (talk • contribs) 23:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation currently, is that the PM & DPM are leaders of different parties. The Conservatives & Liberal-Democrats haven't merged. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fishie and GoodDay. In the joint press conference on Thursday, both leaders explicitly stated they would fight elections against one another as usual, even the Thirsk by-election coming up in a few weeks. It is speculation to say the coalition will break up, but you, Fshoutofdawater, are mistaken if you believe that the coalition HAS to break up in order for both parties to fight the election separately. Tom Black (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah I said that before I heard anything about the Thirsk by-election. I completely agree now that the coaliton is a moot point. --Fshoutofdawater (talk) 01:06, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Harman picture
Is there no better picture of Hattie? We can't have her in black and white while Cameron and Clegg are in colour. Wereon (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Found one and put it up. --Tim Parenti (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good man! Wereon (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Polling section
Polls are usually for Great Britain, excluding Northern Ireland. Is the election result listed only for GB, or does it include Northern Ireland? This needs to be made clear, I suggest. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

For some reason an editor has decided to include all polling stats for the next 5 years in the body of this article under the misapprehension that this was done last time. This was not the case as polls were added relatively close to the election then moved on to their own article as they were clearly unmanageable and swamped this whole article. So please by all means have a summary of current polls but move the details to their own article now please. - Gallo glass 19:53, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a number of points to address here. First, it's not clear where you get the idea that the editor in question was under any such misapprehension. Second, that is not an accurate description of how polling was handled for the last election. There was long a polling section that described opinion polling and included a graph showing trends going back to the 2005 election, but did not include a list of polls. In October 2007, an article was created detailing polling from the prior election onward. It is not clear that polling was handled in any consistent way on Wikipedia around 2005, but in the last few years, Westminister countries have followed a consistent pattern. A table of polls is included in the "Next X election" in its own section until it gets too long. Then, it is broken off into its own article. This can be seen in recent Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand. The reason for this is clear: it would be silly to start a new article for a table of one or even a few rows. -Rrius (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Rrius if you wish to propose a new format as to how we treat these issues then I suggest you take it to the project rather than creating new policy on the hoof as it were. - Gallo glass 22:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing a new format or creating new policy "on the hoof". I am explaining to you how the world has advanced in the past few years. There is no "policy" about this at all, and all I am suggesting to you is that a convention has developed in relation to elections similar to those in the United Kingdom. I think a separate article is, for the moment, premature because there isn't much information yet. It makes more sense to let it grow here until it is large enough for its own article. In any event, with the pace of polling, it isn't rational to continue this discussion now that someone has split it because it will grow into its own before this conversation ends. I would note, however, that your knee-jerk reaction was wrong both as to the suitability of including polling in the short term, but also as to the editor's supposed misapprehension and intentions. There is no reason to suspect the editor ever intended to have the information at this page forever; that was just your own misapprehension. -Rrius (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Rrius this has been discussed before. I am surprised a long standing editor like yourself is not aware of this. Carrying out whats previously been agreed is in no way a 'knee-jerk reaction'. I know you have a somewhat confrontational style here but in this case you appear to be misinformed. - Gallo glass 11:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What was agreed upon? Where was it agreed upon? A massive discussion of whether to start out the first few polls' worth of data at the main election article once a brand new "Next X election" is created? This was a discussion so big that any long-standing editor should somehow be aware of? Well, then, link to it. You can't assume people are going to feel bound by a discussion you haven't even bothered to link to. Why did you assume the editor intended to put the next five years' worth of polling in this article as opposed to putting the polling here for the time being? Why should I have trusted your understanding when a simple perusal of the edit histories showed your understanding of how things progressed at the last election's article was simply wrong? You said that polling was only added late, and then spun off. Well, that's not what happened. The list of polling started in separate article in 2007 (not exactly recently), and discussions of polls (though not the polling data) had been included before that. If you feel I've been confrontational, it's only because you blustered in making sweeping assumptions about the editor's intentions, giving a factually incorrect statement of events, and not even bothering to state a reason for objecting (which includes not mentioning this supposed agreement that everyone is supposed to just know about). That seemed a little more bitey than absolutely necessary, so I reacted by explaining that what the editor did was in line with what has happened at other similar article in the past few years. You then accused me of trying to make up new policy "on the hoof" and proposing a new format. Still, in that edit, you failed to even allude to any past discussions about this (let alone a link). Only in your third and most recent contribution did you mention any pre-existing agreement, which you even then failed to provide any link to or even any clue as to the origin of. So if you think I've been confrontational, well, too bad. -Rrius (talk) 13:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Last Date Again (edits of 06/07/10)
I don't know when the last possible date is or how it is calculated. However recent revertions suggest that there is dispute. The editors are advised to show their sources and make their arguments here before reaching consensus. Pretty Green (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the current wording is probably accurate. Whilst the election is planned and likely will take place on the 7th of may that is different to the legal requirement for there to be an election by a certain date and i seem to recall Gordon brown could have held the election in june so its likely the case in 2015 too.


 * I think that paragraph should be reworded to say the election is planned for 7th of May, then say this may change but the legal requirement is for it to be held before... Seems strange mentioning the last legal date first then the actual election date second which is probably why the IP is trying to change that to 7th of May BritishWatcher (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Having read the article and sources, it seems that 5 May 2015 is not the last possible date, but is the agreed date at the moment by the coalition. This date has no current legal status, though that may change during the course of this Pariliament. I think that prioritising 7th of May, as the current announced date, is the correct thing to do. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about
 * "The next United Kingdom general election will be the election to the 56th Parliament. Under the terms of the coalition agreement between the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats, the two parties which make up the current government, the election will be held on Thursday 7 May 2015. The final date that it can legally occur is Thursday 11 June 2015, barring an Act of Parliament.The general election will see voting take place in all Parliamentary constituencies of the United Kingdom, in order to appoint Members of Parliament (MPs) to seats in the House of Commons, the lower house of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
 * Pretty Green (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be much better. Although perhaps "The final date that it can legally occur is" could be reworded to say it more like "The final date that the election must be held by... BritishWatcher (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The new wording looks fine to me, and I haven't even been "reported" yet.Ratemonth (talk) 13:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The new intro is good, perhaps we could put in the infobox "Expected on May 7th 2015" rather than the June date which i see an IP has also tried to change still. Or maybe "Planned to be on...." BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You people are jumping the gun. The talk of 7 May 2015 is based on an Act the bill for which has yet to be introduced. It is right to note that the Coalition have said 7 May will be the date, but it should be a corollary of stating the election must be held on or before 11 June, not vice versa. Relatedly, the infobox should note the legal status that an election should be held "on or before 11 June 2015". It is speculation to act on the assumption that the bill will be passed and that the promised date will not change despite concerns about the Scottish and Welsh votes the same day. -Rrius (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

A promise by politicians to hold an election on a certain date is all well and good, but it doesn't mean the election will actually happen that date. If they pass a law setting that date in stone, then fine. But they haven't done that yet. Ratemonth (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just a condition of the bill. The date of the election was part of the coalition agreement made between the two parties. The wording above doesn't state that the election will be on May 7th, but it gives priority to a date which the current Prime Minister currently intends to have the election, over the legal final date. It's not speculation to indicate that Under the terms of the coalition agreement between the Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats, the two parties which make up the current government, the election will be held on Thursday 7 May 2015. The phrase 'under the terms of the agreement' qualifies the more forthright part of the sentence. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I support the proposed wording above. It simply makes more sense to mention the likely election date first and then the date an election must be held by second. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Impossible to assert
Impossible to assert as fact, rather than expectation, so much on this article. Most obviously, we cannot be certain that the three men pictured will be leaders at that time; also, we cannot be sure that elections will take place in every seat on the day of the election (cf Tipton this year), we cannot be certain that there will not be pronouncements from the Boundaries Commission, such that there will not be something other than 650 seats. Kevin McE (talk) 10:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We update future election articles according to how events occur. For example, Harriet Harman was Labour leader in the infobox as pro tempore until Ed Miliband was elected. Sir Richardson (talk) 10:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It wasn't Tipton this year, it was Thirsk and Malton, impressive portmanteau, though. The new proposed upper limit of MPs is 600. Of course there will be Boundary Commission reports prior to 2015. I can't fathom what your post is trying to say, tbh?doktorb wordsdeeds 13:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering why on earth an encyclopaedia would publish "information" about an election with no confidence that it will be true by the time of the election. Are people happy that an article about an election featured a photo for several months of someone who there was no reason to assume would be party leader at the time of the election? May as well publish the photo's of Ferguson, Wenger, Ancellotti and Mancini in an article about the 2015 Premier League season: of course, we don't know which will be the top 4 clubs that season, or who will lead them, or how many matches there will be, or what dates fixtures will be on, but by the standards of this article, that doesn't matter. Kevin McE (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No-one knows how many seats there will be at the next UK election, nor that the forthcoming referendum will not result in a change in system, nor who will be tha party leaders, nor that every seat will hold its election on the appointed date. So how can an encyclopaedia make declarations of such things?  A parliament that has not sat cannot be hung, and a situation that has never yet arisen (neither a minority government nor a coalition being formed when a UK election is inconclusive) cannot have a "usual" solution.  But all of these have been reasserted today. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

We publish in articles of future occurances what is the truth for the time being, while making the reader aware of possibilities and likelihoods; while we don't claim to be prophets, should these be made clearer? Sir Richardson (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

But that is not encyclopaedic fact: it is the worst type of Crystalballing, to say what will be, when we simply don't know. As I said in my lst editnote: "This article is making untenable claims about future truths". I see no justification for publishing details of leaders who might not lead their parties in to the election in question: if people want to know who is the leader of the Labour party today, they can click on the link to Labour Party. There is no qualification of the claim that there will be 650 seats, nor acknowledgement that the election might not be run on the basis of first past the post, nor admission that some constituencies might see their polling delayed: my attempts to introduce this was removed summarily. And the assertion as to what "usually" happens when there is no government (majority, minority or coalition) is laughably inappropriate, and yet my removal of the claim was reverted in minutes. Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * On which of the several points that I have made is consensus against me? Where is the discussion by which that consensus was established? Kevin McE (talk) 07:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion above, the edit history and prior practice on this article before the 2010 general election, as well as discussion around the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010 article (and your AfD there), all point to a difference in opinion between your interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL and how it applies to forthcoming UK elections, and the consensus among most editors. In saying that, I wish to acknowledge that consensus can change after discussion, but it seems to me sensible to avoid edit-warring over the article for the time being while discussion takes place here and we look for a compromise going forward. I have already made some additions to the article to address some of the issues you've raised (uncertainty over the number of MPs and voting system to be used). A wider range of views here would be valuable; WP:CON has suggestions for how to achieve that, but an obvious starting point would be to start a discussion at WikiProject Politics. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I have no desire to editwar, and Bondezegou's contribution addressed one of the issues I raised, but otherwise attempts at BRD are thwarted if those who wish to defend the status quo do not make their attempts to defend the (IMHO) indefensible. So let's tackle them piecemeal: Why is it necessary or useful to have pictures of people who are party leaders 4 1/2 years before an election? If people want to know who the leader of any of these parties are, they can click on the link to the party. There can only be limited confidence that all three will hold these roles in May 2015, and every possibility that other national elections between now and then may challenge assumptions about which are the top three parties. It is very probable that the next election will not be for 650 seats. To say that e.g. the Conservatives need 20 more seats to get an absolute majority is therefore most unlikely to be true. There is no provision for extrapolation of the past into the future in exceptions to WP:CBALL.
 * Leaders
 * Number of seats


 * To answer these first two points, I think the logic here is partly that the next general election could happen at any time. The article is about the future, but obviously written in the present. These are the current party leaders, and were an election called tomorrow, which is entirely possible, then they would be the leaders contesting that election. At the moment, there are 650 seats, and were an election called tomorrow, it would be contested on those seats. In the latter case, I take your point and think it would be valuable to have some note pointing out the planned changes. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That at least has a logic, but not, I believe, encyclopaedic validity: there is no confidence, today, to believe that everything that is true today will be the caes. There is nothing on the article to admit that the data presented is based on this assumption, frankly very unlikely, that an eelction might be evident.  Where is verifiability in this: how can one possibky verify the relevance of Ed Milliband or the number 650 to the next UK election.  The article seems to have evolved a set of rules and understanding of the principles of the encyclopaedia of its own.  The equivalent would be to list at the 2020 Summer Olympics a list of the sports that will be in that festival, assuming, of course, that no change is made to the list of sports, although that list is under constant review. Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It is true to say that it is intended that all seats be contested on the same day is true: to say that they will all be on the same day is to ignore the possibility of a candidate's death, but my inclusion of this possibility has twice been reverted. Why?
 * All elections on the same day


 * It is such a rare occurrence that it seems to me unnecessary to flag it up. If you consider important, could not some minor tweaking of the wording suffice (like inserting "generally")? I'll think about the other points you raise. Bondegezou (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But it can happen, so why should the possibility not be acknowledged? Kevin McE (talk) 22:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, and certainly within anything that could be considered the modern era, a UK election has never resulted in a situation where there has been no parliamentary majority without either a minority government or a coalition being formed. This being the case, there is no sense in saying that any response to this situation is "usual". And yet removal of that assertion has been overturned, on the basis of "it has been allowed before".
 * Inconclusive election

I have asked where the consensus that established any of these practices as legitimate and accepted, but no specific thread has been referenced. There is nothing on this talk page that addresses these issues, despite the assertion above, and certainly nothing on the by-election article. Lihaas raised related issues above, but with no substantive answer. WP:CBALL states that All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable: it does not say that assumptions about the future can be drawn from the past, nor that future expectations should be stated as though they are certainties, when debate about change is in place or experience shows that the plan is not always fulfilled. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Kevin - Wikipedia has always been "truth at the point of sale", if you will. We can only be as true as reliable sources allow doktorb wordsdeeds 18:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * And reliable sources report the forthcoming review of number of seats, and the fact that elections have been postponed due to deaths, and certainly don't report that which has never happened as "usual". And exactly which RS is willing to declare that the three people pictured will be party leaders in the next election? Kevin McE (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * We go by the sources we have available Kevin and they all indicate that the 3 leaders now shown in the article will almost certainly barring the proverbial Clapham Omnibus lead there parties into the next GE. Removing them from the article and trying to pretend this is not the case would not be good practice to say the least - Gallo glass  10:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Precisely; no available source will declare without reservation that these men will be party leaders in the next election, so why do we? Would you like to tell me which source states explicitly what we are so strongly implying about that? Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest you review the websites of the 3 main parties to start with. That may help you along. Cheers - Gallo glass  23:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Before you resort to sarcasm, consider that RS should be non-partisan. No-one doubts that they are leaders today, no-one can assert that they will be leaders at the next general election.  Nobody has made any attempt to state why their images are necessary, or even beneficial, in the article.  Kevin McE (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are being a little over sensitive and reading into other peoples comments things that are not there. You asked for sources and I gave the main ones. If you cannot discus this in a reasonable manner with those of us who disageee with you, which at the moment is all the other contributers, then your chance of convincing any of us of the validity of your arguments dwindles with each bad tempered reply you add here and on other parts of the site. Regarding the images, I already have asserted that the the three pictured individuals are in line to lead their parties into the next GE. The main reason the pictures are included is the format of ALL the GE articles have the main party leaders pictured and you have yet to come up with any convincing argument beyond I DON'T LIKE IT which has yet to convince the rest of us to remove them. - Gallo glass 01:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never resorted to "I don't like it", I have [resented encyclopaedic reason for every change I made or proposed.  I am as surprised by the apparent unwillingness of apparently intelligent people to fail to recognise the key difference between past and future elections as I am by your seeming denial that your contribution at 23:46 yesterday was sarcastic. Sir Richardson| stated that we publish while making the reader aware of possibilities and likelihoods: my attempts to publish such acknowledgements have been repeatedly reverted, and my request that those defending the status quo here adress each of the issues that I raise according to their own merits has been ignored. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made some additional changes to try to reach a compromise here of both sticking with past practice, while acknowledging the uncertainty around future arrangements. See what you think. Bondegezou (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Inclusion of the possibility of change of polling method was a reversion I had missed, otherwise it would certainly have been in the list above: thanks for spotting that. As to the continued assumption of 650 seats, why hide the Govt's intention to change it in a footnote? Why only apply it to one leader, while leaving the 650 at the top of the infobox?  But of course, that data is about the party, so why show the leader?  If you must include a pic (why?), why not show the party logo?  Why are you still declaring something that has never happened to be usual?  Why are you unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that some seats may have their poll delayed?  Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think direct links to the Wiki article on the bounday revision bill would be useful to signpost the possible change from 650 to 600 seats. There is nothing wrong with showing the current party leaders; if you think about it, there could well be an election called next month with these three men still in their positions. I don't think Wiki should be used for "unknown knowns". Prior to 2005, it was virtually unheard of for seats to have their polls delayed, it's just too trivial a point to makedoktorb wordsdeeds 10:28, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Far from being "too trivial a point to make", I would maintain that it is an irrefutable fact. The suggestion that every seat will be contested on the same day is by no means an irrefutable fact: a simple (albeit mis-recalled by me above) example from recent history shows that.  An encyclopaedia should portray facts, including factual contingencies: it has happened on the last two GEs in a row, but editors are determined that the possibility not even get a half-sentence mention here.  As to representation of the leaders, I would agree wholeheartedly with their images being included when the election is called, and the campaign starts.  If that happens next month, I'll stop commenting on it then.  But we have no way of knowing today that they will be leaders at the time of an election, and so puting their pictures up at this stage is OR and CBALL.  If anyone wishes to prove otherwise (and I would remind you that it is inclusion, not exclusion, that requires verifiability), publish the RS that states categorically that they will be leaders at the next election.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

To the rest of us these points DO appear trivial. As with your attempt to AfD the coming by-election in Oldham and Saddleworth you appear not to understand the basics of WP:CRYSTAL and how these relate to coming events that are worthy of articles. That you were in a minority of one at that AfD and no one here has posted in agreement with you should tell you that something must be wrong in your approach to these articles. All we are asking you to do is broaden your horizons and cease looking at these things in simple black and white terms and recognise that there are shades of grey between the absolutes you seem to be suggesting are the only possible interpretations. There are very few "irrefutable facts" especially when it comes to political articles and what we who edit them aim to do is achieve a working concensus that all of us with differing views can live with. Please try and adopt this approach and start to take on board the views of others. Doktorbuk above expressed valid arguments above and you've met them by a refusal to engage with the points he made by dismissing them out of hand. Thats not the best way to have your own arguments taken seriously. - Gallo glass 12:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But why don't you make things accurate? I think there are some easy changes to this article that both sides in this argument can live with. Going throught Kevin's points one by one:
 * Leaders: Just rephrase it as "current leaders". At least then it is accurate, and the article no longer misleads people to think that they have already been selected to lead the campaign or whatever.
 * Number of seats: Use a hatnote. It is already used for the 20 seats that the conservatives should win, just copy it to the other mentions in the infobox.
 * All elections on the same day: It is impossibel to predict that they certainly will be on the same day. Of course, this does not mean that all theories of when election can be postponed and where it is most likely to happen should be included, but that is not what Kevin wants to include, just one sentence.
 * Inconclusive election: What the article said now (before I removed it) looked like original research. If Wikipedia includes in its article what happens when no governmente can be made, it should not just be based on what an editor expects that will happen, but on facts. If I am wrong and I forget an occasion in history when after an election there was no government and that lead to elections, I'm sorry. Then just put it back, and mention the election where this happened. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 14:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wise words from EdgeNavidad. As to black and white vs grey: I wish to acknowledge the "grey" areas, it is those defending the status quo who are insistent on a black and white, stating what is now and with no apparent willingness to acknowledge that the future cannot be spoken of with the same certainty as the past. I believe that the by-election article was premature, but that is not the point here.  I have never said that this article should not exist, but that we should admit how little we know about the next UK GE.  However, if you want to discuss interpretations of WP:CBALL, I'm appreciate your observations on the following elements of that policy in relation to this article:
 * If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. 
 * Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. Kevin McE (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Everyone's getting a little bit hostile, so I can just say that I think the compromise reached so far and changes made have improved the article. We now describe the ongoing changes better. Other wording has been improved. Progress has been made over a not very long period. I feel we can probably resolve these outstanding issues. EdgeNavidad has some suggestions; let's see how they work. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Results in last election
I added of votes by the percentage points in the last elections results to make clear that they are not reffering to the percentage of seats. Do you guys think it is better this way? I just think that putting "57, 23%" screams: "What kind of crazy math are you doing that 57/650 results in 23%?" Chico (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved due to lack of consensus. Numerically, editors are split almost down the middle, and both sides have plausible arguments. Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election → United Kingdom general election, 2015 – As a result of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 the election date is now fixed in law, for the devolved legislatures we use the future date see Scottish Parliament general election, 2016, the same format should be applied here. . Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)  20:16, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We us the title Scottish Parliament general election, 2016 even though it is possible that the election may be held earlier (which is possible under certain circumstances.) No reason why this approach should not be used for the next UK General Election which has a date fixed by legislation, though it could also be held earlier under certain circumstances. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is so much else in the article that is already present on the assumption that nothing else changes between now and the election, you may as well make such a move. If the move is refused, maybe a similar approach could be taken to all the other predictions and assumptions in the article.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong disagree. To move to a dated 2015 article would violate CRYSTAL. How do you know it will take place in 2015? There might be a vote of no confidence before hand, or other circumstances which require dissolution. It is also far too early to consider moving - we're at the tail end of 2011, there's far more important stuff to be working on (for example, constituency results are missing across the project, something I notice is not so enthusiastically discussed and worked on).  I am concerned that moving the article to 2015 is just some form of "trophy" - what purpose does it solve right now? doktorb wordsdeeds 09:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The date of the next UK election's not fixed, in as much that there is still a valid possibility that it won't be held in 2015. In this case, why move it? No advantage gained by making the requested move. Cloudz 679 12:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Lots of election articles on fixed timetables are done in this way, cf. European Parliament election, 2014 or United States presidential election, 2012, despite the possibility of these events moving. Let's consider what WP:CRYSTAL actually says: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election and 2020 Summer Olympics." So, it comes down to whether the next election being in 2015 is "almost certain to take place". Given the bookies have stopped taking bets on when the next UK General Election will be, that seems to me to suggest near certainty, although of course it is possible that events might overtake us. All that said, let's not make a huge fuss over it either way. Either article name can automatically re-direct to the other. Bondegezou (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong disagree.There is not a possibility that the U.S. election will move from 2012. Our laws do not work that way. Britain's do work that way. This page should not be moved; it certainly would violate CRYSTAL.Ratemonth (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It could easily be argued that having the article at Next United Kingdom general election is in violation of WP:CRYSTAL as you are assuming that the coalition government will fail. --<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)  21:50, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So we are stuck, then, are we not? I understand your concern, but cannot understand why you are so eager to make this change. It is not needed, would not improve the article, and would present a false impression of the legal reality of the law as it stands. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The legal position is that the Westminster Parliament passed a law saying that there will be an election in 2015 and parliament is sovereign so unless its passes another law to say other wise the 2015 date is set in stone, yes the coalition government may fail but that is WP:CRYSTAL, the article should be moved to bring it in line with other elections that have fixed dates.--<font color="green" face="comic sans ms">Barryob <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms"> (Contribs)  <font color="blue" face="comic sans ms">(Talk)  22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have say that in my view Doktorb, The title change would improve the article in that not only would it better reflect the article about a planned election in 2015 but it will make the reader immediately know that it is planned in 2015. Pro66 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - The UK general election will be held in 2015 so the title proposed would be more in line with other articles and more accurate. If for some reason this changes, the name of the article can change again. The world could end tomorrow.. there are always "what ifs", but it is extremely likely the election will be held when it is planned. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose Anything could happen over the next few years, but some events are likelier than others. If Obama is forced from office someone else will take over his term and there will still be an election in November 2012.  In Scotland if there is an extraordinary general election then the ordinary general election takes place on the scheduled date, unless it is less than 6 months away, so there will be a Scottish general election in 2016 unless there is an extraordinary general election in November-December 2015.  However if e.g. the Coalition falls leading to an early general election then the next election takes place in May 5 years later, the 2015 election is cancelled.  I also note that Betfair describes its market as "Next UK general election", although it explicitly uses 2012 for the US presidential and London mayoral elections, so it doesn't regard it as quite settled. PatGallacher (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support I completly agree with BritishWatcher, it is planned for 2015 and should be reflected in the title just like most upcoming elections articles. Pro66 (talk) 11:29, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment, In Canada we use 42nd Canadian federal election as the title for our 'next' federal electiion (which is scheduled for 2015). GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. Though I can understand the concern of some editors about the fact that general elections in the United Kingdom do not have fixed dates, the chances of one not occurring in 2015 are slim. Though it is possible for an election to be forced through before this, the introduction of fixed-term parliaments in the UK means that a no-confidence vote would have to consist of 55% of MPs in the Commons. Since the Conservatives hold more than 45% of the seats, such a no-confidence vote would require the Conservative party to split. This is highly, highly unlikely; it would be a cataclysmic event in British politics. The chance is so small that I feel that the only reasonable stance to take is to assume that the election will occur in 2015. There's a theoretical chance that the 2012 Olympics may not happen, but that does not preclude us from titling that article thus. Basa lisk  <sup style="color:green;">inspect damage ⁄<sub style="color:#CC9900;">berate  23:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really - the Conservative party might decide it wants an early election, if it sees an opportunity to take an outright majority (and I doubt the Opposition would want to be seen blocking an early election). This scenario seems perfectly realistic to me.--Kotniski (talk) 09:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add a reply to the comment above: though this is an interesting solution, elections are never referred to by their numerical order by the public in the UK. It would be a misleading title. Basa lisk  <sup style="color:green;">inspect damage ⁄<sub style="color:#CC9900;">berate  23:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Mais oui! (talk) 17:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the Canadian federal precedent. They've also introduced fixed term legislation in recent years but since then they've had elections sooner than expected. Let's see how things settle down in practice first and revisit this after polling day. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. There is no guarantee that the next general election will happen in accordance with the fixed timescale; there are explicit provisions in the Act allowing for elections at other times. (In the event of war, it might be postponed to later than 2015.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, though I don't really like the current title much, I don't see how the Act has has really changed anything as regards the scheduling of the election. Just as before, it might still be held in any year up to 2015 (and with a hung parliament, it seems quite realistically likely that the election will come earlier than expected).--Kotniski (talk) 09:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose with the split between Clegg and Cameron over the EU deal on sovereign debt, there could be a governmental collapse in 2012. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Even a collapse in the government would not result in an election - the election is fixed for 2015 unless (like many other parliaments with fixed elections) a required proportion of MPs vote for an earlier election. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Which they presumably would, if Cameron wanted one. So the situation is not much different than it was before - the PM can probably hold an election any time he wants within the 5-year limit. --Kotniski (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A governmental collapse usually results in a confidence vote, which usually fails, which then, either the Queen selects a new Prime Minister, or elections are called. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 07:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Kotniski / 76.65.128.198 - I'm not sure from your comments if you've realised the extent to which the rules over general election dates have been changed by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011? The old procedure of what 'usually' happens after a confidence vote has been replaced with a new, formal process - which rules out the old process of the defeated Prime Minister deciding they want an election and asking the Monarch to formally call one. That sequence of events can no longer happen and Cameron cannot unilaterally make the decision to call an election. Markpackuk (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, but parliament can, and under the circumstances I don't consider it especially unrealistic to suppose that it might well do so.--Kotniski (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, so can you give a sequence of events which would be legal under the new rules and you think is realistic to imagine happening? A specific example might make for a better discussion than talking abstracts I guess! Markpackuk (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Clegg and Cameron fall out, Tories decide they want an early election, put a motion to the House, everyone supports (why would any of the other parties want to be seen to be opposing?), early election happens.--Kotniski (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Here are some reasons why: (a) for all other parties - if the Tories want an early election, it'd be because they think they would do well in it; for all the other parties that's a good reason not to have an early election and they would all have the perfectly reasonable argument to make 'you set the law to avoid early elections, so follow it'; (b) for Labour - the legal process set out is that an election isn't held if the Commons passes a vote of confidence in another government, so putting themselves forward as a government would give them the direct opportunity to take power; (c) for other parties facing that move from Labour - see (a); (d) for all parties other than the Tories - because the Tories would be seen to be going against what they had previously said should happen (full five year terms) there is lots of political mileage in highlighting their change rather than in going along with it Markpackuk (talk) 12:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, all of these things might happen - none of us has a crystal ball - but it's also quite likely that no new coalition can be successfully formed and all (or most of) the parties simply recognize that a new election is the best way out of the mess.--Kotniski (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest you all read this about "early elections" - http://www.markpack.org.uk/28115/how-can-a-general-election-happen/  doktorb wordsdeeds 15:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another unsustainable assertion
Until we know the result of the Scottish referendum, and if it results in a majority for independence the timescale of that process, we cannot know how many seats will be up for election. This is already acknowledged in the text, but apparently cannot be in the infobox. Perhaps the infobox should be only a summary of the text: it cannot contradict the text. Don't assert pure supposition. Kevin McE (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation. There's a citation for the observation. Once again (I've just refreshed my memory on your earlier bizarre outbursts above), you're overcomplicating matters. Step away from the keyboard, it's not doing you any good. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, don't be so damnably rude.
 * There is no citation for 650 seats. If there is certainty that there will be 650 seats contested, remove the sentence from the text of the lead that casts doubt on that (the sentence you restored today); if not, remove, or at least qualify, the assertion in the infobox in the light of that uncertainty.  To do neither is to be self contradictory, which serves only to confuse, not to inform, the reader.  Kevin McE (talk) 13:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is an implication that there will be 650 seats if the current boundary processes aren't agreed upon. I guess we could link to the previous boundary proposals to show the 650 if that pleases you? I really haven't got a clue about the problem you have on this article. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are multiple reasons why the next election may be on a different number of seats: Scottish independence (although the timescale for that, should the vote pass, is unclear); the Conservative proposals for a reduced house (now without LibDem support, but they could still pass); any other proposals that are passed between now and then. The article should, I suggest, note such possibilities, but it seems to me sensible for the infobox, as a summary, to keep with the current state of play. Bondegezou (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Summarising is one thing: asserting what is only possibly going to happen, without qualification, is another. A footnote might suffice if it is felt that it is too lengthy to go in the infobox text. Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I presume what you are calling an assertion is that the article will be on the same number of seats. The article is entitled "next General Election". It is necessarily about an event that is yet to happen. Were the election to happen now, it would be on 650 seats. That must be the starting point. That number could change, but I don't see any reliable source citations from you to show that this is such a major concern that it needs to be in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is one in the lead paragraph. There are at least three entirely predictable situations in which there will not be 650 seats (boundaries review, Scottish referendum, death of candidates): that is sufficient grounds to have enough uncertainty to be worth admitting.  We know for certain that it won't happen today or tomorrow, so what would happen if it were tomorrow is irrelevant.  I really cannot understand the resistance to acknowledge the "known unknowns" that exist: why do you want to hide from the reader the distinct possibility that there will be a different number of seats contested?  This looks like a case of "This is the schematic we have always worked to, so we will continue" rather than a desire to give the best information available to us.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Talk of hiding information from the author is hyperbole. We're talking about an infobox, a brief summary. Everything you want is in the article, isn't it? Let's see if anyone else comes forward to support your suggestions. Bondegezou (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can other people really not see that the truth is not summarised by presenting probables as though they were certainties? Why the determination to assert on the grounds that nothing will change when we all know that there is a real possibility that it will?  How does that help the reader? Kevin McE (talk) 00:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All I can see is you being troublesome and ridiculous. The Queen might die tomorrow, shall we edit the article on the monarchy of the UK to make this clear? Shall we call the House of Commons "Schrödinger's Parliament", where there might be or might not be 650 seats? The readers of this article are almost certainly aware through its entire content that there's the boundary review coming up and that there's currently 650 members. Filling the lead with every possible permeation seems overblown belt-and-braces, and suggests to me you have some kind of version of WP:OWNERSHIP issues doktorb wordsdeeds 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you are just talking offensive rubbish. Please either explain how I can be claiming ownership of an article which I edited twice in two years, or retract that accusation.  The article about the monarchy is about a current situation: this article is about a future event, and so the things that we are aware might change we should acknowledge and draw to the reader's attention.  Assuming that people reading an article on an election don't need information about that election is unconventional, to say the least.  I am not proposing "filling the lead" with anything (I think the word you were looking for was permutations, not permeations), and you restored exactly such a comment to the lead recently.  I'm suggesting using a subtle footnote in the infobox to tell people that they should be aware that there is reason to assume that things may not be as summarised.  But what the hell: if people interested in this article are not concerned with taking care not to mislead their readers, I'll just take it off my watchlist and leave you to be entertained by making it difficult for people to find relevant information. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, the flounce! Okay then, bye. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So which is it to be: substantiate your accusation, or withdraw it? Or simply be seen as lacking integrity? Kevin McE (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * With neither retraction nor justification forthcoming, there is only one conclusion left to draw. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ...that I'm bored of dealing with you? That I thought you'd flounced off after not getting your own way? doktorb wordsdeeds 19:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To other editors, I repeat my enquiry: why would you deliberately choose to not bring known potential deviations from the status quo to the attention of readers in an infobox dealing with a future event in which the data cannot be stated with confidence? It is already noted that the date is presumptive: why can other presumed elements of data not be acknowledged as such? Kevin McE (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This discussion does not feel like it is heading in a very constructive direction. I note Kevin McE's concerns, but in the absence of any evidence that other editors feel the same way, consensus appears to be for the current text. Shall we leave it at that until such time as (a) other editors express views; or (b) there is a major change in the probability of these alternative events? Bondegezou (talk) 11:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Opening, Addition of Nigel Farage?
I know the election is a long time away and everything but I just wanted to get the ball rolling on this topic and get atleast an interim decission that is subject to revision depending on where the polls take us. The page Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election has been updated to reflect the last 9mounths of opinion polling. I just want to say from the outset that I played no role in the making of that decission, nor did I have any discussion on that talk page untill after the decission had been made. Since then I have made a few edits. These edits are in line with discussions on the talk page. You will notice that the editors have taken the decision to remove UKIP from the "Others" column for the list of opinion polls and have created a "UKIP" column. This is due to the fact that the opinion polls show that UKIP are within the margin of error of the Liberal Democrats polling numbers. In individual polls UKIP have come ahead of the Lib Dems and this is becoming more frequent. This is not to say that UKIP in polling terms are the 3rd largest party in the UK. The point is there is a statistical tie, we simply don't know! After 9 months passing and this trend continuing, I think it is farely safe to say that we are not over relieing on current events. This has passed the "Flash in the Pan" test so to speak. Therefore, I argue that we should add UKIP with leader Nigel Farage to the main infro box, with a picture etc. Obviously it would need to state they currently have zero MP's etc... Many might say "but UKIP aren't going to get a seat" or "UKIP are never going to get more seats than the Lib Dems". The point is, that we simply don't know that yet, we can't be objective here, we have to work with evidence. There is so much evidence in terms of polling, in terms of Byelection results ( Corby,  Barnsley,  Rotherham,  Middlesbrough,  Croydon,  Feltham) and also the first England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012. It be good to have a sensible discussion about adding this, we don't want any edit wars or anything :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@doktorbuk I realise that your a "card carrying" member of the Liberal Democrats and I just want to say I understand why you took the post down. Yes, I should have discussed it on here first. I don't wan't an edit war, so I'm not going to attempt to re-add it untill this has been debated! I have made my opening case and provided links to other evidence. — Preceding 217.41.32.3 comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is simple. The summary box is to summarise the previous result, which is logical enough. I'm aware that there might be a conflict of interest issue with me, but this is me with my "Wikipedia policy" hat on - if we start projecting ideas based on the heat of elections today, we'd get nowhere. doktorb wordsdeeds 05:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not basing this on a hanfull of by-elections. I'm basing this on by-elections, an almost nationwide poll (Eng & Wa PCC elections) and most importantly 9months of polling having UKIP within the margin of error of the Lib Dems, thus creating a statistical tie. I get what your saying about it just being a summary but I would argue this page is completely different to say a standard by-election page. There isn't a full list of candidates with all of the party leaders in it, for instance. Nor would it be practical to do this because there are just so many of them etc. So ths page is completely different and I would argue needs a more pragmatic approach.

I'll meet you half way: why don't we add UKIP and Nigel Farage in to the box, for 9months. On the basis that we have 9months worth of poling showing that statistical tie. If in 9months time the Lib Dems have fulled back or if UKIP are floundering and that statistical tie is broken, then we remove UKIP from that box completely. To me that sounds fair and reasonable, it's a suggestion based on evidence, setting a pre-condition relating to the evidence! Basically to be a permanent fixture on the page, UKIP have got to prove themselves over a longer period! The thing is I am concerned that not having UKIP in that box while there is all this evidence, while you've got people like Andrew Neil refering to UKIP as the 3rd party etc that wikipedia is at risk of looking like it's pretending we're living in 2005! Also we have to think of our impact on public opinion, we can't be seen to act as a barrier. It is clear that we are not a promoter, the 9months of of discussion etc of the opinion polling page saw to that, in the end the evidence was just too clear!

I also want to point out that; in not amending this we are going to have 2pages on the same subject that appear to be inconsistent. Wikipedia's an Encyclopedia, one thing we must be is absolutely consistent. The opinion polling page can't and musn't be reverted back, it has been decided by impartial editors (not nou and me) and there is an overwhelming wall of evidence to ensure that it's maintained! Are you happy with the compromise? I think we should make the 9month condition binding. What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 06:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I have edited, mentioning Ukip under the political parties section. I hope that that is okay. I'm not editing the infobox or anything - BritishEditor, 13:00 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BritishEditor, I think this is a sensible interim measure while this discussion is under way. However I have just fleshed out what you have written to be absolutely clear and neutral. I've also put in a few links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What's anyone elses view on this; I have provided a substantial amount of evidence, can we have a counter caim or some form of agreement. Like I say I think the best comprimise and the best way of getting concensus is to put UKIP on, with NIck Clegg and Nigel Farage apearing directly below Cameron and Miliband, with nick on the left and Nigel on the right. I think the key to concensus is the 9month review. UKIP seem to have passed the "flash in the pan" test but if polls widen and the current trend does not continue for atleast half of the next 9months then UKIP should be removed. Discuss.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to add UKIP's target seats (based on previous results). I must be a bit dim because I'm making a complete mess of it, can someone help me out? Thanks :-)

Also, for the time being at least, it seems sensible to remove the Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg from the info box untill we can sort this out decisively. I'm doing this on the bassis, that based on the Lib Dems previous result, there is no realistic chance of The Lib Dem leader making it to become PM or Leader of the Opposition. Nigel Farage and Nick Clegg have just as much chance as one another of achieving either of these roles based on all the evidence we have. If there's no Nigel, there should be no Nick. It seems quite simple! I will remove him for now. Please do not revert, without sufficient discussion on this talk page. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also I think the time has come for Wikipedia to have a face shot of Nigel Farage, obviously one where he's not been caught mid-laugh! Currently it looks a bit odd when he's the only one with a full torsoe shot. This is not the only pge where this is a problem, see EP elections, 2014  and 2009 for that matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you believe the Lib Dems should be removed, 217, that's fine. However, Please wait until a consensus is achieved before making such a rash action. I have reverted your edit and would ask you to discuss it further here first. The editors need more time to debate the properly before changing the layout so much (the two minutes between your post and your deletion are, clearly, not enough for a thorough discussion). –  Richard  BB  15:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Richard BB fair enough but can you join in the debate please. If people don't debate we don't get concensus. In my view it is clear that something has to change! I think if we're to appear unbiased and neutral, one of 2 things have to happen: 1. Either Nick is removed 2. or Nigel is added. Please debate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Although, in my opinion, I'm fine with Nigel being added, it might be that other editors have good reasoning against this. Remember, a lot of people are right in pointing out that UKIP have no seats. –  Richard  BB  15:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I totally get what your saying and appreciate/respect the viw you have just put forward. Like I say though; this is not a standard by-election page or info box and therefore the rigidity of rules for those pages when applied to a unique page like this, creates inconsistencies between wikipedia's articles. Please see the comprehensive wall of evidence/ my argument above! I think you'll find it's compelling. Previous number of seats is not the be all and end all. And if it is, it seems clear to me that Nick Clegg should be removed based on his party's previous results. Like I say he has no where near enough seats to be classed as a credible candidate for PM or indeed leader of the Opposition. Whichever way you look at it, this page is inconsistent with both other pages relating to this article and with the rules/criteria set by Wikipedia editors. Something has to change one way or the other. Please can we have more people join the debate! thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made a post at the appropriate Wikiproject, hoping that it'll draw more people into the debate. –  Richard  BB  17:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all South East England is a Euro Region not a commons seat so that's wrong. Secondly they have currently no seats so in terms of seat share are behind, the following parties: SNP, Plaid, Greens, DUP, Respect, SDLP, Alliance and Sinn Fein. so including a party with no representation in the Commons would be undue weight as they have less seats than all of the parties not either the Government or Official opposition. Inclusion of UKIP must not be done as they are not a "Major" party, have no seats in the commons, and have never finished higher than fourth in a general election seat where the three main political parties all stood. Also according to this version of the UKIP article here they have little to no representation on any publicly elected authority outside the European parliament. They are currently doing well in low turnout by-elections but not winning them and are polling a long way behind the winning party. they also finished fifth in vote share at the last PCC elections (behind Labour, Conservative, Independents and Liberal Democrats). So any inclusion of UKIP is not justifiable as it is simply opinion polls that this is being based upon and not actual results or numbers of seats and they are what actually count. Sport and politics (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have popped over from the UK Politics project. This is a fairly delicate case to consider as we need to separate arguments based on policy from soapboxing by the parties. Given the popularity of Wikipedia it would probably be quite a coup for a party to be prominently displayed in the infobox of the next election article.
 * The current rule of thumb is that only parties with more than 5% of the vote in the last election qualify for the infobox. I don't think that is written in either policy or guidance but just a convenient norm established through separate discussions throughout Wikipedia. We don't want to swamp the article with entries in the infobox so some form of objective criteria needed to be established to avoid political edit warring. Under the current norm, UKIP does not qualify for an infobox entry but a new consensus on this talk page could overrule that.
 * From the discussions above there seem to be two issues. First, that UKIP should be included in the infobox. Second, that the Liberal Democrats should be removed.
 * I will tackle the second point first. Under the current norm the Liberal Democrats had well above 5% of the vote at the last election, so would qualify for an entry on that basis. Setting asside the 5% rule, other reasons why they may qualify are that they had the third highest share of the vote, third highest number of seats and also formed a substantial proportion of the current government. The reason given for removing the Lib Dems is that if the UKIP don't qualify then neither should the Lib Dems - I'm sorry but that sounds a little like sour grapes so is not a very convincing argument. If you have an alternative argument I would be willing to consider it.
 * Back to the first point, it is true that UKIP have been performing very well since the 2010 election. However, should Wikipedia as a tertiary source be conducting original research on recent opinion polls and election results then declaring UKIP as either the fourth or third party in UK Politics? In terms of policy that puts us on some fairly shaky ground. Also if we declare UKIP as the fourth party, how long before a DUP or SNP supporter comes along to argue that the number of elected members is a more important factor than opinion polls to determine the 4th party?
 * Do we have any sources to support treating UKIP as the third or fourth party? I saw a report on Channel 4 News this week where the reporter speculated that a very good performance at the next European election would lend weight to UKIP's argument to get equal news coverage at the next general election. That suggests that the secondary sources we use are considering giving equal weight to UKIP but should Wikipedia jump in now and prejudge their decision? I would argue that we would then be straying from our role of reflecting the secondary sources and instead become a primary source.
 * In summary, I would argue that the Lib Dems should be retained and that the UKIP should be excluded from the infobox. At least until the secondary sources decide that UKIP qualify for greater coverage at the next general election.
 * Sorry for the long post but I am having computer trouble at the moment and may not be able to add any more to the discussion later. Road Wizard (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@Sport and politics 1. I know that South East England is not a UK Parliamentary seat. I simply put that there to state his current role, if you don't want that included, I accept your reasoning. I personally think it would be better then a blank space (it makes it cer that he's not actually an MP) but happy with whatever consensus on that point! 2. As for UKIP being behind other parties, may I just point out that these are regional/ home nation parties. It is litterally impossible for any of these parties to enter Government or HM official Opposition because the largest number of possible seats any of these parties can get is 59 out of a total of 650 MPs. That makes this particular argument irrelevent because their leaders can not possibly become PM of Leader of the Opposition with all the will in the world and all the luck on their side! 3. As for UKIP never having finished higher then 4th: Well thats a bit of an arbitrary argument because potentially there could well be 4 "fully UK national" parties with a significant seats in Parliament! 4. UKIP not being a "Major" party is largely opinion based on your part but I will try to make that opinion more informed: - The BBC have also changed their standard approach on solely having Nigel Farage on their flagship poitical programmes, Paul Nuttall, the deputy leader has made 2 appearances on Question Time in the last few months, he's also o a regular on Daily Politics. Also Question Time have had a UKIP seat at the table more often, they use to have a standard rule of 'once every 6 episodes', this rule has been dropped. - Other minor national parties only ever have their Leader on these programmes and no other members make TV appearances! For example The Leader of The Green Party only get a Question Time seat once a year! I believe this is also the case for Respect and George Galloway. UKIP are treated completetly diferent by the BBC now. When being interviewed they don't just ask questions about Europe, they discuss energy and have even discussed education! The BBC now treat UKIP as a "Mainstream Political Party" 5. Since a lot of people are a bit anti-BBC at the moment, I will include another network RT News, this is a freeview channel, to all citizens of the United Kingdom, it is channel 85 on Freeview. RT have had many UKIP members appear in interviews, including; Nigel Farage, Paul Nuttall, Gerard Batten, Godfrey Bloom, William Dartmouth and others! This one point (5.), I admit is original research! But just his one! 6. You make the point about lack or representation on local Authorities. I just want to point out that you can't have this argument both ways! If European Election results are Irrelevent to UK Parliamentary results (which they are), then surely it follows the same logic that Local Authority Election Results are just as Irrelevent as European Elections when looking at the UK Pariament! 7. As for your point about Turnout. Yea sure the turnout is low but at the end of the day 22% is still 22%, whether 20,000 people turnout or 70,000. (Deliberately exagerated figures there). If people don't want to vote they render themselves electorally irrelevent and should therefore be ignored! 8. As for the PCC Elections, there was only 0.16% between the Liberal Democrats and UKIP, since we are only using this as a guide (very rough at that), this should be taken as a statistical tie, in terms of testing public opinion. To conclude, you are wrong to say that I am solely basing this on opinion polls, I am also basing this on: Recent by-elections, the PCC elections, the self prescribed criterion of British Polling Council members to include UKIP as a "Major Party" and the treatment/change of policy of the countries public service broacaster. For these reasons I would argue, we are not setting a precedent, we are merey following one! UKIP have earnt their place in that bo for atleast the next 9months. If things change, they can be removed in 9months time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * All major opinion polls, registered with the British Polling Council now publish UKIPs polling figures within their headline poll with the other 3 "Major partie", not wthin others!
 * The BBC, the UK's public Public Service Broadcaster have changed their stance on how they cover UKIP on television, radio and on line. Andrew Neil said on the  Sunday Politics 04/11/12 "with a new popularity and more coverage, should come a new scrutiny, so we are joined by Nigel Farage for the Sunday Interview"!


 * The above arguments from 92 appear to be circular in nature, The Greens and Respect have both won seats in parliament UKIP have none. While the NI, Scot and Welsh nationalist parties do not contest elections UK wide, to claim "It is litterally impossible for any of these parties to enter Government or HM official Opposition" is not true. They could form part of a coalition government or coalition opposition. We have a coalition government now so any party with elected representation could enter in to a coalition government or coalition opposition. There was also no dismissing of European Parliamentary results, the point being made is UKIP only perform well at those elections (based on elected members returned) and not at any other type of election. For a party to be considered "mainstream" there should be some performance at a range of levels across the United Kingdom take the Green party they have elected representation at Local Authority, Devolved Authorities, Westminster Parliament and at the European Parliament. UKIP have only had individuals elected to the European Parliament and Local Authorities, their Devolved Authority seats have come through defections and they have never been represented on the Welsh or Scottish Devolved Authorities. This indicates a greater level of support for the Green party at varying levels of elections, meaning at the very least they should be given the same weight on wikipedia as UKIP. As for what the BBC chooses to do on its TV programmes that is for the BBC to decide and not for Wikipeidia to conduct original research into. Wikipeida cannot be entering into placing its own original research in to articles just because they appear more on some state TV programmes, did well in a few by-elections then they had a in the past and they are ahead in some opinion polls of one party or another. There is no real justification other than OR and I want them included, to actually put UKIP in the infobox. What next we put the BNP in there if their opinion poll numbers spike and do well in a couple of by-elections and appear on the BBC a bit more. It is exactly the same principle. The best thing to do is wait until the election takes place and then the infobox can be updated to reflect what actually happens. For the moment though the same rules as before with are bright light in nature and consistent should be maintained and upheld. The simplest thing to do is leave just the parties forming the government and the official opposition in the infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think the broadcast policy of BBC programmes like Question Time is relevant. The behaviour of polling companies in listing UKIP separately in results is not relevant. The polling results of UKIP in national polls is not relevant. The votes gained in European elections, or Police Commissioner elections are not relevant. The infobox is about none of these things: It is about the actual result of a UK general election. UK general elections, like it or not, are based on the number of seats in the House of Commons won: the total number of votes gained by each party is not relevant, it is their concentration in geographic constituencies that matter. If the infobox were about the BBC, polling companies, polling results, etc. then you would have a point, but it isn't.


 * The one thing that gives me pause is the results at the by-elections, but even then only 1 of those was truly significant (the 22% in Rotherham being a party record). But that is only by-election, and they didn't win. If they were to consistently poll well (as in 15%+) in by-elections, then potentially you've got a case. If I'm horribly wrong, and they achieve a breakthrough in 2015, then obviously it can be changed to reflect that, but at the moment there is scant evidence based on House of Commons election results to put them up there. -New Progressive (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

@(talk) 1. You make the point that other "regional parties" can become part of a coalition of government, yes, I grant you that, that is indeed possible but there is still zero chance of them becoming PM and of course the job at the bottom of the info box is Prime Minister,. It says and I quote "David Cameron ( Conservative), that is the job up for grabs! To go a step further, it is not even possible for the leader of a small "regional party" to become Deputy Prime Minister because they are too small. there is no precedent for this in Britain. However Ireland, the country with the most similar Parliamentary system to the UK's exists and it gives an interesting example. Whereby up until 2011 Fianna Fáil governed in coalition with the Green Party (Ireland) and the leader of the greens was not Tánaiste (Deputy PM), the Tánaiste was also a Fianna Fáil  TD! Based on this evidence the only 2 people who are ever likely to become DPM in 2015 are Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage, not a smaller party leader!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While the BBC, a key reliable source here, may be giving UKIP more coverage, it is also the case that BBC policy remains that coverage of an election is principally determined by parties' performance at the equivalent previous election: see (and it helps to read the details for each election to see how that policy is interpreted). Thus, UKIP will get plenty of coverage by the BBC at the next Euro-elections, but not at the next General Election (unless their policy changes). It seems reasonable for Wikipedia to take its lead from this and I, thus, echo doktorbuk's and other comments above. The infobox, as a summary, should be led by performance at the last general election, as per RSs, as is verifiable.
 * The BBC policy does take into account other indicators. Were there strong evidence of UKIP performing well in by-elections, other elections and polls, we should consider that. However, that isn't currently the case. Out of 13 by-elections in this Parliament, UKIP haven't won any (Labour 11, Respect 1, Sinn Fein 1). They have come second thrice, but then they were never a close second and the LibDems have come second thrice too. UKIP didn't win any of the Police and Crime Commissioner elections and got (slightly) fewer votes than the LibDems. In the 4 Mayoral elections of 2012, they didn't win any (best performance was third) and got fewer total votes than the LibDems (still true even if you look at only the 2 Mayoral elections in which UKIP put up a candidate). In the 2012 local elections, the LibDems won 431 councillors, whereas UKIP won 9 (fewer than SNP, PC, Green and Residents Associations). In the 2012 London Assembly elections, UKIP won no seats and had a vote share below the LibDems and Greens. There is more of a case for the Greens there!
 * Finally, we have polling evidence. The claims made for UKIP above are questionable. Nearly all polls put UKIP behind the LibDems and the more reliable phone polls put UKIP some way behind the LibDems. (The margin of error comments above are wrong if we combine over multiple polls.)
 * So, I don't see evidence of a sustained electoral or polling performance by UKIP that would warrant overturning the current position. Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Sports but I've got to correct you there, your wrong! The Green Party of England and Wales have never ever had a seat in a devolved Assembly! Your simply wrong, neither through defection or election, so if we could stick to the facts, that'd be nice!Also UKIP have councilors in England, Scottland, Wales and Northern Ireland and yes, they have achieved elections in all of these parts of the country! Also UKIP do control a council, they control Ramsey with a majority of the seats! The Greens are the lead party in Brighton and Hove but have no overall control! Get your facts right, if your argument is to be credible it's to be based on fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * If you are talking about UKIP performance across the UK then you should compare that to Green party performance on the same basis. Scottish Green Party and Green Party in Northern Ireland both have seats in the devolved legislatures. Road Wizard (talk) 21:22, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I never referred to the Green party of England and Wales specifically I deliberately used the phrase "the Greens" there is little difference in the heads of the general public between the Green Party of Scotland, the Greens NI and the Green Party of England and Wales. The electorate do not draw a distinction and very few members of the general public would know any distinction existed, pointing out a distinction is a splitting hairs and irrelevant to the point, there is also the matter of the London Assembly, elected in the same way as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament. I have also specifically stated UKIP have had people elected to "Local Authorities" of which a Town Council is one. I have also stated no where the greens control any principle "Local Authorities", in Brighton they are in minority control. UKIP do not control or have minority or majority control of any principle Local authority. A Town council is not a Principle Local Authority. A Town Council is a non-principle lowest tier Local Authority. Also the majority of the UKIP people were elected either unopposed or in wards where UKIP were guaranteed to have elected members. i have been very clear in my wording and have not claimed what you are stating please refrain from trying to "win" and personal attacks on credibility.Sport and politics (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the BBC, when did the BBC start folowing the BBC Charter, they don't religously, they reserve the right to be pragmatic, which is why they have changed their policies and hence their actions! Also I'm glad you bring up London because that is the one area where the argument regaqrding the Green Party stands up (aside from them needing to trebble their poll ratings). There is an important point I'd like to make here, which puts the Green Party to bed! UKIP WERE NOT ON THE BALLOT! They made a massive mistake and appeared on the ballot for the London Assembly election, 2012 as "Fresh Choice For London", this is also the case for London mayoral election, 2012. This invalidates your point completely, the problem was people didn't know it was UKIP. And legally speaking, it wasn't, they made a complete dogs breakfast of it! This invalidates your argument about London! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Right, I think this has been gone over in sufficeint detail. You have not provided a credible argument/ over turned my counter arguments. You have actually made things up and I have provided links to point you in the direction of the facts! I can't see any reason why we can't add UKIP for 9months and then review the situation! Seems a sensible compromise based on the situation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The arguments against your edit appear to be based on policy but your counter arguments seem to be based on original interpretations of external sources. Decisions here are based on consensus, which currently appears to be in favour of the previous position. You will not be able to overturn consensus by simply denying it exists. Instead, as an alternative approach, you can escalate the dispute through one of the formal or informal dispute resolution procedures. Road Wizard (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Finding it hard to be polite here guys. Someone has removed something that was agreed on the talk page by others! OK I get why UKIPs by-elections have been removed, I can see that but removing the note does not make sense! It was agreed in the previous section! I did not even suggest it, it was someone else! People just seemed to have gone into some form of arrogant "I'm an editor and I say this..." clamp down mode by removing everything and anything added recently.....even if it's been agreed! It's really pathetic really! Seems to me some people have an over inflated sense of self importance....either that or a lack of self confidence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing Recent Comparisons
Some calm and perspective is needed, I think.

When George Galloway won Bradford West, we had a flurry of anonymous IP addresses adding him to this page. Rightly, we turned that down. In the heat of the action, people began to seriously believe in the "Respect breakthrough" and clearly they wanted this article to reflect their version of reality. When the dust settled, so did they.

UKIP are in a "same but different" position, and I think it's sensible if editors (both registered and the new gang of IP addresses we seem to have attracted) realise that in the heat of the moment, no sensible person is going to allow their enthusiasm to get in the way of Wikipedia policy.

Whilst I understand that the opinion polls are looking positive for UKIP, they are also looking very good for "don't knows" and "won't votes". Wikipedia has policies designed to stop changes being made in the light of current events (such as UNDUE, BIAS, BLP and others). Further to this, and I think crucially, Britain has a voting system which works against UKIP (and others) from gaining seats from a standing start. As such, the policy of CRYSTALBALL kicks in, because adding Nigel Farage to the summary box would be predicting the winning of seats, rather than the generally accepted reality of seats being won by the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties. If we started adding Nigel Farage on the assumption of a win somewhere in the country, we'd have to add SNP and Plaid leaders too, and the Greens. If we accept that the summary box is just that, a summary, and further a summary of people who are most likely to be involved in the formation of a Government, we can't add Nigel Farage.

I have no doubt that, with no by-elections due, and no elections until May 2013 at the earliest, the heat and light of the here and now will fade away. With it will go the fury of UKIP supporters who want their leader's face on this page for two years.

doktorb wordsdeeds 21:54, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing on this talk page about George Galloway or Respect, so frankly I do not buy your argument! For all I know you could just be making this up, in order to try and shut me up! Proof? Also, I'm prepared to let tis o for a few months, if we agree on some cear goal posts for inclusion here on this page. I want them documented so that people can't go ba on their word like they have on other pages. All I want here is a fair crack. I think you'll find I've argued my point rather clearly, I've used facts and not simply made stuff up like some people have on this talk page! New goal posts can't be based on by-elections because we don't know if there are going to be any, do we... but we should take them into account if there are any within the said time frame! The arguments I've heard on here from some people have been bsolutely pathetic, I bet most of you hven't a clue what psephology is, never mind studied any form of political science! Well, I have and I can tell you, I know how to spot a flash in a pan! This is the most exciting thing to happen in political history since the rise of the Labour Party in the 1920s and 30s, trends wise, it makes the Lib Dem's look insignificant. You guys just don't want to look at evidence that is already on the freaking website, your not even willing to read and check your facts! It's pathetic!

Ok, lets set some goal posts, so that we don't get people moving them. May I suggest we wait untilwe get the 2013 County Council Election Results. Thats 6 months away! If UKIP and The Lib Dem's remain in a statistical tie for atleast half the time between now and then (up's and down's are cyclical and often event based) and if UKIP make a significant achievement in those eections. I think you should reconsider. by significant achievement I mean take control of councils and become the official opposition in some councils! Beat the Lib Dem's in around half the councils! I think that is clear and gives an even longer time frame - over 15months of opinion polling to go with it. Can we agree to this as a goal post for at least the temporary addition of Farage and UKIP to this page! I don't see how this is unfair in any way at all. it puts you fears to rest by allowing a lot of time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The Galloway point was a reference to how editors came over here after Bradford to add details about Respect, just like members of UKIP are doing the same. There's no mention of Respect for a reason - they were edited out for the same reason. Read WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Why's it not on the talk page then. Besides this isn't exactly all that comparable. Galloway was one seat, in one city with insignificant polling! UKIP is competely different, there has been a statistical polling tie with the Lib Dems for over 9months. UKIP have beeten the Lib Dems in just as many by-elections as the Lib Dems have beaten UKIP in this Parliament! UKIP were narrowly behind the ib Dems in the PCC elections 0.16% to be precise! Say what you like about turnout, everyone has the right to vote, if they choose not to use it, they render themselves irrelevent, that's democracy, it's that simple! All the evidence I have given points out just how absurd your comparison is between UKIP and Respect, I mean it really is! Like I say I bet no one on here has a clue what psephology is, or indeed has never studied any form of political science! We've got a crapy article here because we've got crapy editors, that are not able to be pragmatic! Remind me of box ticking bureaucrats! I have explained why things like the 5% rule are not relevent for this page but because we use it for articles that are completely different to this one, (for a competely different contest) we use the senselessly rigid and unjust 5% rule! People clearly haven't read my argument! Fingers in ears singing lalalalarings bells here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The PCC elections, County council elections, and indeed most other elections you cling to here are irrelevant. The page is about an election to the House of Commons. Victory in those terms is about having the most votes in individual Parliamentary constituencies. UKIP is not presently likely to win a Parliamentary constituency: the closest it has come is a by-election where it polled an impressive 22%, but this was compared against a winning 46%, so really, its unlikely to make a break through. The polling data of UKIP is irrelevant - its not about how many votes you get, but about how many constituencies you win. I severely doubt that there is a constituency in the land where they are ahead in any polling. -New Progressive (talk) 11:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@New Progressive Yes, thank you, I do reaise that. I have studied political science as an accademic (as I have already stated). I quite accept what your saying with regard to the North of England! However if you look at the demographics and break downs of polling, you can see that there is a very realistic chance of a number of breakthroughs in the south of England, particularly in Kent, Cambridgeshire and Devon! Note there have not been any by-elections in this part of the country durring this Parliament! So your opinion is solely based on whats between your ears, mine is based on reading facts figures and studying changing demographics! I'm "clinging" to certain things on the bassis that others have been clinging to things! If you read above, you will see someone talking about the Greens where they use misinformation to justify their status! They also make parralels between the Greens and UKIP, I link in existing evidence that sets them straight! I don't see why the Greens are on here on the bassis that they don't meet the criteria your setting for UKIP! Can we pease stop the he said/she said business and get on with these goal posts/pre-requisits for addition for a later date! unsigned IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 11:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

UKIP being "Politically Cleansed" from Article
There is not a single mentioning on the page of UKIP, target seats removed, brief small comment (that was agreed on talk page) removed. Seems Ironic, bigots like the PM called UKIP "closet racists" and then UKIP gets sujected to bigotry!! I mean it really does take some beeting! No mentioning what so ever is a step too far to put it mildy! Wikipedia editors seem to live in thir own little world of self importance and most of you haven't a clue about anything! You just lurch from one extreme to the next, hardly credible! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed Green and Respect target seats on the bassis that UKIP have been ethnically cleansed from the entire page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.79.117 (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * You're not going to win much support by claiming that UKIP is somehow related to 'ethnic cleansing'. This article is about the next general election, and that's it. Not about specific parties, not about specific candidates, not about specific constituencies. If you're heading off to the direction of racial bias, then you're heading towards a cul-de-sac. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You (94... IP editor) can't remove other sourced information just because the info you want in the article was removed for lacking sources. See WP:POINT. Discuss the matter here (the UKIP matter, not the pointiness). If you need to, seek dispute resolution. But tone down the rhetoric before you do so. I've semiprotected the article for 3 days to prevent disruption. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Look, I am trying to behave reasonably on here and I am clearly loosing patients with people that don't extend the same courtesy and I clearly let down my guard last night! Why should I stick to the rules of using the talk page before editing when others just come on here and delete what the hell they like, despite my messages to "please discuss on talk page" before action is taken! You know you can't have it both ways, some how making out that I'm the only one who's too big for his boots does smell a bit hypocritical! Like I say, I don't want to fall out, I don't want an edit war, I want us all to behave with mutual respect, others are clearly contributing to the negative atmosphere! I admit "Ethnic Cleansing" is probably not the wisest choice of words but on the other hand every slightest little mention of the party has indeed been removed from the page. I thought this phrase was ironic because a hell of a lot of people (including the PM have accused UKIP of being "Mostly closet-racists" and this seems to have fed it through to public perceptions over the years! You can see where the parralel came in to my head! Look all I want on here is for people to take a step back, put aside whatever prejudice's they have and get on with it! The target seats I added were properly linked in, if you wan't sources to go with it, I can copy and paste the existing sources across from other pages on wiki. To simply delete something that someone has spent a bit of time doing, without even giving a reason why, is not a reasonable way to behave! There was no comment, I had no idea sourcing was the issue! I don't see why a party the size of UKIP, with it's imense poll rating (today 4% ahead of Lib Dems) goes without 1 single mentioning on this page. Meanwhile we have the tiny green party (who don't even dream of polling figures above 5%) and they get a mentioning on a seat where they're in 3rd place and need over a 7%swing! Can we have a sense of proportion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Look I have already accepted in above comments that this is not going to get added today or even in the next few months! Ok, so I'm not arguing for that, what I want us to do is discuss setting goal posts because on other pages they have kept moving! I want us to set it, so that it's here in writting! I made my suggestion about the 2013 County Council elections. Can we discuss that as a goal post? Criteria to fulfill etc. All I want is a reasonable discussion with mutual respect! My misbehaviour is entirely reactionary and provoked as expained above! Please bare that in mind! Can we resume some form of sensible discussion: (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be against WP:OR, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

@New Progressive Yes, thank you, I do reaise that. I have studied political science as an accademic (as I have already stated). I quite accept what your saying with regard to the North of England! However if you look at the demographics and break downs of polling, you can see that there is a very realistic chance of a number of breakthroughs in the south of England, particularly in Kent, Cambridgeshire and Devon! Note there have not been any by-elections in this part of the country durring this Parliament! So your opinion is solely based on whats between your ears, mine is based on reading facts figures and studying changing demographics! I'm "clinging" to certain things on the bassis that others have been clinging to things! If you read above, you will see someone talking about the Greens where they use misinformation to justify their status! They also make parralels between the Greens and UKIP, I link in existing evidence that sets them straight! I don't see why the Greens are on here on the bassis that they don't meet the criteria your setting for UKIP! Can we pease stop the he said/she said business and get on with these goal posts/pre-requisits for addition for a later date! unsigned IP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Using polls to suggest what might happen breaks WP:OR. "realistic chance" breaks OR and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The Green Party is included because it won a seat at the 2010 election, and therefore can be assumed to have a chance to defend at least one actual constituency in 2015. UKIP is not inlcuded because it didn't win a seat at the 2010 election, and there can't be assumed to have a chance to win at least one in 2015. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:34, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, IP, thanks for the info about your background, because now I think I can see the problem. See, the thing is, the vast majority of what academics do is what Wikipedia calls original research. We can report on what other secondary sources say, but we are not allowed to look at primary data (which is what poles, surveys, demographics, etc. consist of) and draw conclusions about what is or might be true. If you want to do that, you need to write an academic paper and get it published in a journal (or do work on an online site, or write for a newspaper, or whatever). This is, in fact, what encyclopdias generally do—they don't do frontline research, but, rather, lag behind and try to summarize what frontline research is saying. Hopefully that helps explain why, even though the analysis you have done is interesting and possibly valuable to the world, it isn't what we do here at Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Qwyrxian is absolutely right. It seems that this whole debate, including the one taking place at Talk: Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, is centred on original research (interpretations of polls) and crystal ball reading (what might happen based on those interpretations). I would strongly urge all IPs to read the links that Qwyrxian posted, as they are the guidelines upon which Wikipedia was founded. –  Richard  BB  09:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

With regard to the opinion polling talk page: I think you are being daft because it's not interpretation, it's basic reporting of the numbers. In making the decision to get rid of UKIPs column, we are actively making the decision to ignore how pollsters report they're polls! I think someone said on that page "There are no seats in polls, they're just national percentages, you can't sit on a poll". To my mind it would be original research to remove UKIP (not the other way round) because it would be ignoring the reporting and methodology of officially registered polls. We can't do that.... a poll is a poll, not based on seats, its a national %. E.g. the Lib Dems got 23% of the vote but no where near 23% of seats in 2010! Sorry but we're just reporting the polls as they're being reported. Interpreting or changing them would be original research. This seems to be what your recommending! I suggest you don't! <font color="#8000FF">Nick <font color="#8000FF"> ' 09:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's best to keep this debate to one page. I see you've also copied this message to that page -- that's fine. We'll discuss it there. –  Richard  BB  09:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are interpreting. Polls are done (I assume, if the UK is like other first world countries I've been in) daily, weekly, by all sorts of groups, with all sorts of purposes, and all sorts of intents. Picking certain polls and declaring that there is a trend is interpretation. More importantly, saying "the results of current polls indicate that we should feature certain people in an infobox" is definitely interpretation--you're applying the results from one domain to something radically different. Again, trust me that most academics are really surprised just how extremely Wikipedia doesn't allow original research. For example, a Wikipedian could look at a poll and say "X polled better than Y". They could even do basic math and say, "X polled twice as well as Y" or "better than all of the other candidates combined". And that is literally the extent of what the Wikipedian could say. They could not say "X is more popular than Y according to this poll". They could not say, "Looking at the results of the last 3 weeks of polls, there is a clear rising trend for X" or "Polls released in November consistently showed X in the lead". I know it probably does sound daft to you as an academic, but we cannot say any of those things unless a reliable source says them first. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussing Pre-requisits, potential "Goal Posts" for later on
Please discuss setting goal post for County Council Elections, 2013. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll make this point again as you haven't responded to it the 2 times I've made it before: The PCC elections, County council elections, and indeed most other elections you cling to here are irrelevant. The page is about an election to the House of Commons. Victory in those terms is about having the most votes in individual Parliamentary constituencies. UKIP is not presently likely to win a Parliamentary constituency: the closest it has come is a by-election where it polled an impressive 22%, but this was compared against a winning 46%, so really, its unlikely to make a break through. The polling data of UKIP is irrelevant - its not about how many votes you get, but about how many constituencies you win. I severely doubt that there is a constituency in the land where they are ahead in any polling. -New Progressive (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Newprogrssive. As I mentioned above, this article is about the next general election. At every general election article, the summary box reflects the result at the preceding election, which is a sensible policy choice. Elections are shown on Wikipedia are analysed "like for like", not "keeping up with the whims of opinion polls". At the 2010 election, UKIP won no seats, only 900,000 votes (3% nationally). Across this parliament, UKIP has won no by-elections and only 20,746 votes in total, not enough to justify being promoted over any others as you would like. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As Newprogressive says, we cannot discuss here what will happen on other articles. Those discussions need to appear on those pages. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's your argument, others where making their argument on their claim that "UKIP only do well in European Parliament elections" - not true, which is why I pointed it out and put sch great emphasis on it! You know we seem to be having it both ways, earlyer their argument was aparently relevent, now I've shown it to have no factual bassis it has of course become irrelelvent. I realise what you 2 are saying about previous results and seats but you have to admit we are living in a very different time in British Politics, from a historical perspectve, it can only be compared to therise of the Labour Party 90years ago! On that bassis I would argue wikipedia needs to stop being rigid! We need to reflet reality, the election box should reflect the actual contest! 5 years is a long time, a lot can change.... usually it never does but this time is a stark exception, unlike no other! I'm not asking for UKIP to be promoted, I'm simply asking that we set a clear test that is some months away! Might I add, it's a test under the 1st past the post system...shoots down another counter argument! If UKIP pass it then we add them on a trial bassis, if they slip back to insignificance after say 9months, then they get removed again!

It is important that the election box reflects the actual contest, otherwise we are showing biased the other way. Agreed things are fine as they are for now... we need more evidence.... UKIP still have some proving themselves to do! In doing what we are doing, setting clear and reasoned tests, using a range of evidence etc, we are putting in sufficient safe guards to ensure that wiki is not a promoter and is merely reflecting reality aknowledged by alsmost everyone else other than wiki! That's all I want a fair crack at this. Wiki will be guilty of being biased the other way, if they do not genuinely reflect the competition! But as I say we need more evidence! Which is why I keep going on about goal posts, this is the only reasonable way of doing it! So that we're not being biased either way. So would people please be prepared to engage and be pragmatic when looking at a clearly unprecedented situation! All I'm asking for is that we set up tests for them to pass! Prove themselves! In doing so we would be setting a precedent which would help if this situation arises anywhere else! I am unaware of this happening elsewhere but it does seem to be a good solution to a problem if it ever des arise again! I think you'll have to agree!

We must reflect reality to show ipartiality! Under dramatic change, the past can't always be used as an objective way of looking at the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the summary box reflects the actual contest. The reality is, UKIP can't be featured in the summary box as that would be changing consistent rules and break WP:BIAS and WP:UNDUE. I'd remind you that Wikipedia is not a politics website, it doesn't have to or need to bend to the wind of every election result or opinion poll surge. doktorb wordsdeeds 12:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Well actually I'd argue there aren't any clear and reasoned rules for a situation like this. I'm disapointed that people seem to be utterly incapable of pragmatism! I'll give you an example of where this has happened before! may I take you back 112years to the United Kingdom general election, 1900. Notice in the info box, Labour only gained 2 seats, hardly significant and on the bassis of your main argument (previous results) alone, they were hardly a credible threat and not worth including! Note that Labour recieved 1.8% of the vote nationally in that election (demographically it was locally concentrated as well!), whereas UKIP achieved 3.1% in 2010! However, Labour are included in the info box, based on what they went on to achieve! there is an inconsistency here!

The fact of the mattter is no one knows for sure what is going to happen, wikipedia doesn't have a crystal ball! This is why we need to do everything we can to reflect reality by looking at evidence and setting clear and reasoned tests! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have to say that it's scraping the barrel to suggest that Wikipedia's editors in the 1900s were breaking the policy decisions of the 21st century doktorb wordsdeeds 13:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is another question here. We can sit here in 2012 and make guesses about whether UKIP will win seats in 2015, but that isn't really the point. To what extent is UKIP a part of the story of the next election? The party has been doing increasingly well since the last general election both in polling and in elections. It is now consistently polling withing a couple of points of 10%, and there is some speculation about it coming tops in the European elections. None of that necessarily means it will win seats, but how its vote holds up will, at the very least, play a significant role in determining who does win a number of seats, and ultimately may be a deciding factor in determining which party or parties govern after the 2015 election. Does that mean UKIP should be in the infobox? No. But listing target seats and mentioning the rise in UKIP's polling and how that has been interpreted by political commentators does seem appropriate. -Rrius (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Allow me to interject with a radical solution. Get rid of the infobox. There is a common misconception among some editors that every article needs an infobox; in fact, the majority of articles do not. This article is about a future event. It is certain that it will happen, but, beyond that, nothing else is certain--not even the date. Every person in that infobox may resign before the event, they may die, they may all switch parties. The infobox's very existence, in my opinion (as someone with no interest whatsoever in UK politics) is misleading, because it implies something about the elections that is simply not true (primarily because there's very little that is true about the elections, other than the last date on which they could possibly be held, and the rules that would trigger them being held sooner, though that can be better covered in a more general article). So, what if the entire infobox was removed? Qwyrxian (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Qwyrxian's solution is also credible! I would be happy with that. it would at least remove any appearance/potential appearance of inconsitency and wholly removes the question of political bias! We don't even need to add a list if we don't want but a list of all parties (inc Nationalists) and their leaders lower down the page would also be credible!

However as an alternative my proposal needs to be seriously considered and analysed! Like I say there is no precedent for it in living memory! We need to be pragmatic here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 14:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposals for setting pre-requisits for addition of UKIP

 * Fine, I'll take your bait and suggest some criteria. This page is about elections to the House of Commons and historically we have only listed parties with a national presence and a significant number of seats. I won't deny that UKIP have a national presence as they run in the majority of constituencies. They, however, have no seats. In order to be included in the infobox, they need to win 6 seats at by-elections - this is the lowest number of seats I can find listed in the infobox for a modern election (Liberals in the 50s). If we really want to dredge up the Labour example from 1900, then I would have to reply that election marked a breakthrough for Labour that we are able to view with the benefit of historical objectivity; We have no such fortune here: There is no way to judge if a UKIP victory in 2 seats would be the beginning of a breakthrough, or a flash in the pan. We cannot gaze into a WP:CRYSTALBALL. UKIP already have their "best" target seat listed as Buckingham, so no need for changes there. New Progressive (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, obviously wiki didn't exist in 1900, it's not that I'm accusing wiki of including Labour before the election took place, quite obviously. I'm accusing wiki of inconsistency, that's completely differen't! Since what I'm saying is parraleled to 1900, that is the precedent we should follow. It's also worth noting that the 1950 example of Liberals that has been given demonstrates a different political context! From 1945-2010 Britain had been governed by Coalition, whereas in 1900 and through of that era, it was a time of coalition and electoral pacts! In this example we see that the Conservatives had formed an electoral pact with the Liberal Unionists. This is the precedent we should follow, the 1950s example would be taking things in the wrong form of context! it is in the wrong era of the historical political cycle.... and there is such a thing, clear patterns exist to point out such a cycle! I will base my suggestion on precedents that have been set.

My Proposal: 1. On the bassis that Labour only gained 2 seats in 1900. I propose that if (at any point) before the 2015 Election UKIP, gain 2 Westminster seats at by-elections then they should be included in the table if they meet the other conditions. 2. UKIP be included in the table if they show a strong showing in the 2013 council elections. A strong showing can e defined as "making significant net gains" on atleast 2 county authorities and at least net gains on atleast a further 6 county authorities! "Significant net gains" should be defined as a net gain of 10 or more and a standard net gain as between 1 and 9. We should also take in to account how they poll when compared with the Lib Dems in the Mayoral contests of Doncaster and North Tyneside. If UKIP are within 2% (or beet the Lib Dems) in both of these contests then this should be considered as also meeting the criteria. In the event of UKIP meeting all this criteria, even if UKIP have not gained 2 seats between now and the results being published of the 2013 council elections, (we must bare in mind that a by-election is unlikely to arise in the next 6months) they should be included upleast up until the 2014 EP Elections! 3. UKIP would need to gain at least 22% of the vote (same as Rotherham, to show consistency) and beet the Lib Dems in the 2014 EP elections. They would need to have a seat in every constituency in the country (except Northern Ireland) to prove they are a party of national standing! If there has not been a by-election between now and the publication of the 2014 EP election resuts they must then be maintained/added to the info box! If there has been a by-election we must see how they fair when compared with the Lib Dems in this poll, I'd also go a step further to say they must have achieved at least 15% of the vote in this poll to remain in the info box! 4. Opinion polls: UKIP would need to remain within the margin of error of the lib dems (or exceed them) in national oppinion polling for atleast 50% of the time of any one period. This rule would need to be applied to both periods that I speak of 2013-2014 and 2014-2015!

If UKIP have met all this criteria (that is realistically possible), then UKIP should go into the 2015 election as part of the info box because they will have proved they are just as credible challengers as the Lib Dems and we would therefore be reflecting reality! UKIP could be removed and re-added at the 2 key points where they meet/fail to meet this strict criteria.

I think this is a sensible, clear and well reasoned proposal and I see no grounds for objection. However if you do wish to engage in debate as to the specifics of the criteria by all means do! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.46.142 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Your proposal is flawed: 1900 is not comparable to today. The Labour Party is only included on the 1900 infobox because our view of history allows us to see that the Labour Party began its break through there. We have no such view of UKIP here, any attempt to suggest we do is gazing into a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Politically, UKIPs fortunes are more likely to be as a protest vote against a sitting government as there is nothing in by-election results to suggest that UKIP are also taking votes from the opposition (Labour). New Progressive (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The BBC guidelines I linked to earlier would support greater coverage here if UKIP did very well in the next Euro and local elections and very well in the polls. I think setting goalposts now is impractical but were UKIP to do better than the LibDems (in seats won) at the next locals, for instance, I would be happy to re-consider the issue. If they came close to that (at least 90% of the LibDem's seat total), I would be happy to re-consider. Re-consider means return to this discussion, not automatic change to the page! For now, consensus clearly does not support any change and continuing the discussion seems pointless. Bondegezou (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow! There's a hell of a lot of info on here! I've just read the 3 UKIP sections and the bit where people got a bit angry. Calm down, it doesn't help! I've also had a look through the evidence/links 2.123.46.142 provided. I have to say, you can't get away from it, he/she's made a lot of relevent points and put together a sound case! I don't appreciate his/her aggression but I am inclined to agree with the proposal! I just wan't to point out that I flatly reject any idea of UKIP being added before those elections in 2013, there is no good reason for that, 9 months of polls is convincing me but I still don't feel it's enough! We need a sound "test" as he/she puts it! I accept the premis that we don't know what's going to happen and we've got to reflect reality the best we can in order to appear unbiased. For now reflecting reality means change nothing! However I think the above proposal makes sense, it just seems fair (more or less). There are one or 2 things I want to change to it though:

1. I don't think using the 22% figure for the Euro elections is good enough because you base it on the Rotherham %, this is on of the few areas where there's a whole in your logic. May I suggest that what we need to compare to here is the Liberals! In 2010 the Liberals got 23% as a national share of the vote. As far as I'm concerned UKIP must gain in excess of that figure (23%+) to pass that part of the "test". 2. I think the 2 Westminster seats is fair based on the previous precedent set. I think comparing back to the 1900 example is fair. Look the guy seems a bit of an arse if I'm honest but I get where he's coming from with that and to be fair to him, he has argued this quite well! I'm convinced, the other arguments don't seem to stand up, I mean it's like we're constantly dipping in and out of different rule books! That's not cool! One thing I think we should make clear though is that; come what may UKIP must achieve 2 elected (not defected) westminster Seats before the 2015 campaign starts, for UKIP to stay up durring the actual campaign. Even if they pass all the other tests, I think we should delete UKIP on the 1st of March 2015 in the event of them not having achieved a by-election breakthrough! Personally I think if the party passes all this guys tests, it will be a bloody mirracle.... but I accept that it's possible and I do think it would be fair to add UKIP (at least for an interim period) in the event of these tests being passed. 3. If they achieve the target for the 2013 council elections and then review the situation at the Euros! However, I want to raise the bar a bit for 2013, it's just not high enough! He/she says 2 councils with net gains of 10 seats, well I say 5 councils with 10seats (irregardless of net gains or total- simplify it a bit). I think they must also have at least one councilor on atleast 10 different county councils (total). 4. I agree about the local mayoral contests, that sounds fair a fair test!

I agree with the idea of removing the info box if people can't be arsed to find a solution/agree. It would make life a lot easier if it just went! I think that might be the end result at this rate! other then that if the proposer is happy to make these amendments to the proposal then I am happy to give them my vote of approval! I'm trying to be fair here. Other then the guy that suggested deleting the dam thing, I seem to be the only one making any effort to read and understand the argument and as this person puts it "be pragmatic". You know I had to look that word up, I might put it in my next CV lol. Anyways let's just get on with an agreement here! sheffno1gunner (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@sheffno1gunner and the 2 IP addresses: I have read the whole thing and I do get where you 3 are coming from! I'm glad you all accept that this page is not going to change for at least many months! As far as a solution is concerned, I think your proposals are too long and complicated. Personally I don't see the 2014 Euros being a credible test on their own because UKIP are already the 2nd largest UK Euro party, so as far as a 2stage "goal post" goes I'm hesitant about it. I think it's got to be clear, UKIP either score the goal in 2013 or they miss! It's got t e that simple! I think Bondegezou has actually made a very sensible suggestion that simpifies your complicated solution. Why don't we just add UKIP to the election box if and only if they achieve at least 90% the number of county council seats that the Lib Dems get. I think that would solve our margin of error issue and also we wouldn't be relying on "untangables" i.e. percentages. A seat is a seat, if they don't get the seats then they've not proved that they're capable, it's that simple! We can't be messing around!

@Newprogressive Also as far as 1900's concerned, I do actually think that it is relevent, it's our ownly direct comparisson. I don't think it's relevent whether UKIP voters are protesters or not, a vote is a vote. Furthermore, it is also not relevent to this point where UKIP get their votes from, whats relevent is whether they get votes and fair well! However, I will address that assertion: I disagree on that, UKIP do seem to be taking Labour votes and Lib Dem votes, perhaps this is a protest but I think it's wrong to say they only attract a narrow demographic. Anyways, that is entirely beside the point, that would be original research on both your part and my part, so lets avoid it! No what matters here is votes! As the IP address (rather excitedly and pasionately said / I detect a personal interest there!) We haven't seen this happen in our living memory. The Lib Dems can't be counted as comparable really because they were the merger of 2 parties, one historic old party and one large bunch of Labour defectors (SDP). UKIP are not that, they started with no representation etc and have grown themselves, Labour in 1900 is the only precedent we have for this, so 1900 is entirely relevent! I get what your saying about us having the benefit of a historical perspective of 1900, clearly. However, I think as others have said we have to be consistent, consistent in the here and now. I think one solution could be to remove Labour from 1900's box. I do take their point there, I don't call this original research, I call this us trying to follow a precedent that has already been set.

I believe we should give these guys a firm undertaking that we will review the situation after the 2013 elections and that the 90% of Lib Dem seats, should be the figure we go with. If there has been a by-election between now and then (unlikely), I think they must at least achieve 23% of the vote (LD national %, not UKIP in Rotherham), which in all likelyhood would probably mean 2nd place! As far as 2014 goes, I'm happy to say if they become the largest party on a national level, with seats in 11 of 12 UK regions (not inc NI) and gain 30% of the vote or more, we should include them on the info box. It's worth noting that Labour only achieved 29% of the vote in 2010 and came 2nd, so I think 29/30% a very high bar to set, considering UKIP could only manage 18% in 2009! It's a high bar but I think it's fair! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 10:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't believe a review based on the 2013 County Council/Unitaries is useful - as I've said before, this is a House of Commons election, and there is significant disparity between performances in elections to different bodies - you just have to look at 2009 to see that European and County Council election results were different despite a broadly similar electorate (yes I know that CC elections aren't entirely national, but they cover a majority of the population). I don't believe there would be a good enough correlation between local and HoC elections to draw inferences from one to the other. Even if I were prepared to consider local vote shares as HoC vote shares (I'm not), what matters for HoC elections is concentration of vote in constituencies.


 * I agree that the proposed criteria from IP addresses are overly complicated. It needs to be as simple as victory in by-elections as those are elections to the House of Commons and therefore comparable to the general election (though again, not fully correlated): I say 6, you say 2. To be honest, I'm not too bothered, though I stand by my remarks that Labour is included because its the beginning of a historical narrative for them, and we don't (and can't) know if its the beginning of a historical trend for UKIP. If we listed every party who gained 2 seats at each general election, we'd have some damn big infoboxes; We don't, because they petered out shortly thereafter. You say Labour in 1900 are the only comparison we have to the UKIP of today. How about the Communist Party in 1945? It had been around for about 2 decades, won a few seats, but within a decade was a spent force (in HoC terms). The truth is, neither of us know. We can't. I could name quite a few more examples of parties that could be listed in infoboxes, but aren't - in this respect the Labour Party are listed as an exception to a general rule because it marks the Parliamentary beginning of the rise of third party of power in modern Britain. New Progressive (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to all that, it's worth remembering that info boxes have two "stages". For by-elections at least, these stages are "Which parties saved their deposits at the corresponding election.", and "Which parties saved their deposits at the by-election." For general elections the stages should be broadly similar. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Conclusion, Discussion Suspended untill 3 May 2013
That, gentlemen, is what happens when you try to summarise a future event purely on the basis of previous events. Supposition cannot be verifiable and, as I have suggested before, the entire principle of construction of the infobox, and much of the article, is based on unsustainable assertions. I suggest a total rethink of the infobox, that focuses on what is known will definitely (apart from entirely unpredictable changes) be the case by the time of the next election. It is not unreasonable to suspect that number of seats, names of party leaders, and which parties will be high in the polls will change; all are known to be unknowns. Kevin McE (talk) 07:31, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, what happens above is the result of UKIP trolls coming here in the heat of the moment. As above, WP:OR allows us to dismiss most of what the IP addresses have demanded. There are other "Next [X] general election" articles built on the same premise as ours without anything like the same kind of problems, this has only come from the recent election results. I note that your worries further up the page attracted no further comment, because they're not worries we need to concern ourselves with. The infobox is a summary of the most recent election, which is a fine and proper policy to follow, given the nature of elections. I think now that the IP addresses have got bored, this page will calm down anyway, so all the concerns, including yours, can be safely ignored. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to put this as nicely as I can, despite how much your words frustrate me, Doktorbuk. You don't get to decide that we're going to ignore some people's concerns. Yes, some of the comments expressed above are from people unfamiliar with Wikipedia's rules, and thus are proposing ideas that run counter to our principles. But speaking as an outside observer, I see several comments above that express legitimate concerns about the current infobox. These concerns need to be addressed in good faith. Please do not simply abandon discussion because you've decided that everyone not agreeing with you is a UKIP troll. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

@Kevin McE I think you make a good point in that we can't "try to summarise a future event purely on the basis of previous events". But I have to say, that is what you and a lot of people seem to be arguing for, to summarise the next election plain and simply on the previous results. I think 90% of the time, that's fine, that works because problems like this simply do not occur normally! I'm kind of in the middle here! I don't think the previous result should be the be all and end all, I really don't, I do get where they're all coming from, even if I don't fully agree with thei solution. Like I say I think the 90% figure of Lib Dem seats (not votes) suggested by User:Bondegezou is a fair test for 2013. I think we should give that undertaking, if they achieve that in 2013 and their national poll ratings haven't slipped, then we should consider putting them up on a trial bassis. The ultimate test being the EP elections, like I say 30% of the national vote is an enormous challenge, the fact that it's a PR system is neither here nor there, a percentage is a percentage! This isn't a simple cean cut thing but we've got to make it as simple as possible, using simple %s is the best way! I think your 1st point is the key one though and it applies to your own argument as well. It works both ways, this is why I think we should atleast try to work with these guys instead of being obstanent (no offence). Nick Dancer wordsdeeds 10:43, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with User:Qwyrxian here, I think you should withdraw that remark User:Doktorbuk, I don't think it's fair to label people like that without evidence, also it's not like they're arguing for us to cange the page today! They're arguing for us keep this under review, see if this trend continues. People have made the point that 9months of polling show a statistical tie, 9months, that's a 3rd of the Parliament, by the time we get to the 2013 elections (if trend continues), that's half the Parliament! We can't simply dismiss this to my mind, I thnk there are legitimate concerns here, having looked at it closely. With respect Doktorbuk, I think you should apologise, your actions have cast doubt about your partiality in to my mind, I'm afraid to say. We don't shout people down, we discuss each point raised. All these guys are asking for is an undertaking that we will review this, if this trend continues and if UKIP get the 90% of LD seats. I don't see how that's unreasonable! sheffno1gunner (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, Doktorbuk, that wasn't nice. I agree with what the other 2 above have said really, not much more to add to that really! Other than we seem to be hing a growing consensus here: Bondegezou made a suggestion and it seems acceptable to me, sheffno1gunner has shown approval, I think the 2 IP addresses will be ok with that and if I'm not mistaken Qwyrxian seems open to the idea. Let's be clear that this is a review we're talking about. If UKIP get the 90% of LD seats (not just votes) that are up for grabs in 2013 then we change the article and review again after 2014 Euros (elections not footy)! Agreed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick Dancer (talk • contribs) 11:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't know if my view counts for anything but I'd be happy with that, that's all I want here, a fair crack! 4 of you have at least have made efforts here, different levels of efforts but you all have been prepared to drop whatever prejudices you have and see the facts and look at the evidence for what it really is. So thank you! Hope we get concensus, like I say all I wanted was genuine tests, oppourtunity for the party to prove it's self. If you think my method is too complicated etcthen that's fine, your's is a lot simpler and I guess it's still fair. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.147.148 (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify, as I think Nick Dancer may have missed my point slightly: I don't think we can set any goalposts now that UKIP needs to cross before being included in the infobox. To do so would violate Wikipedia policy, I suggest. I gave a concrete example of the sort of result that would give me pause for thought, a situation where it would be fruitful to re-visit this discussion. Other situations would also trigger that. However, I am talking about re-visiting this discussion, not about changing the infobox, not about any sort of trial run. Those decisions have to be based on Wikipedia policy, like WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:OR and WP:CON.
 * I suggest there are two principles here. First, as far as I remember from 'next election' articles for other countries/regions, infoboxes do sometimes include parties that won no seats previously. However, when they do, it is in recognition of major change in the political playing field and reflects WP:RS etc. Such a situation could arise in the UK; it could involve UKIP. I think it is fair to acknowledge that possibility.
 * However, secondly, I do not see that UKIP are currently in that situation, for reasons discussed above. And we have discussed this at length. So, while I regret Doctorbuk's use of the term "trolls", I do agree with his substantive point. There is no consensus support for any changes to the infobox now (or indeed to other changes to the article highlighting UKIP). While we absolutely should assume good faith and respect all our fellow editors, while we can acknowledge the possibility that the situation may change, it would be valuable to move on from this discussion and for the dissenting minority to acknowledge that. I hope those who wish to re-start a similar discussion at some future point do so on the basis of some new reliably sourced facts and come to the Talk page first rather than simply editing the article. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm Happy with just about everything Bondegezou said. I accept that UKIP are not at that stage yet, they might not get there, we don't know yet. I was just pleased you aknowledged the point I was making and gave an example of what you thought would signify such a change! Also you raised another interesting point! One that I am aware of but tha completely slipped my mind! You were of course referring to the Finnish General Election in 2011! Your right, I do remember the run up to that the True Finns Party had no seats and yet were included because of the political climate... Timo Sonni of course later became Leader of the opposition in Finland! I take your point and do not intend to revisit this subject any earlier then the aftermath of the 2013 county council results. Then we can maybe a more informed decission... which was the suggestion all along. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.147.148 (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Settled: Converstaion closed, we reconveen on Friday 3rd May 2013! Nick Dancer (talk) 14:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me :). I didn't mean to paint everyone with the "trolls" tag, and apologise if offence was caused. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:01, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Target seats
Without wishing to re-open the wounds of the above discussion, I think there is a question about what target seats for what parties to show. I like having the target seats there. We've previously had separate articles for target seats and maybe that will be appropriate in time. However, there is a danger that what target seats to show becomes WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and thus WP:UNDUE. At present the article gives 27 targets for the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems, and then one or two for the SNP, PC, Green, RESPECT, UUP, Sinn Féin, SDLP and DUP. So, that's every party that won seats at the last General Election except it omits the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and includes the UUP (who were long represented in Parliament, but failed to win any seats in 2010) and RESPECT (didn't win a seat at the 2010 General Election, although they had won seats previously and then won a by-election). OK, so one obvious approach is to replace the UUP with the Alliance and then we've got something consistent (parties in the Commons). Or perhaps we could include any party within 5% of winning a seat (UUP in, Green & SDLP out, Alliance & UKIP stay out)? Or perhaps either (seat in the Commons or within 5% at last election), in which case we'd just have to add Alliance. If I can work the Tables out, I might just add Alliance for now. Ultimately, I'd feel happier if we were basing our actions on reliable sources. There are some books about the last election that may be relevant here, but general press coverage of the next election will presumably be sparse for some years. However, we do have some, e.g.. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, Alliance's top target, on 2010 vote share last time alone, is Belfast South, where they were 26% behind (13% swing required) and in 4th place last time (although the UUP candidate then has since joined Alliance, as it happens). That does seem a bit silly in a list of target seats. So perhaps I've answered my own question! Still, should UUP be in (didn't win any seats in 2010, although were very close in South Antrim), should we drop the Greens (14% behind and in 4th place in Norwich South) and SDLP (19% behind, but at least in second place in Newry and Armagh)? I'm content with the current situation, but put these questions out there! Bondegezou (talk) 12:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I like having them too, but I admit it's an area which needs a bit of a tidy. I re-wrote one sentence in an attempt to exclude UKIP, and hope we don't have to walk around that ground again in a hurry. Two things strike me - "27" is a pretty unusual and arbitrary number, so let's cut it down. A poll will follow this post on what figure to go for. Secondly, I think the Norn Iron situation is so characteristically bonkers that there should be a single, composite table for the parties there, rather than little "tablettes" for all. doktorb wordsdeeds 13:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that polls are not a substitute for discussion. I'd urge you to remove the below and instead try to establish a consensus through discussion. –  Richard  BB  13:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I would tend to think that the best listing of target seats would be based on those requiring a swing less than a certain % (say 10%), where that party is placing at least 3rd. It does pose the question of how to overcome situations where there are 4 significantly competitive parties, such as Norwich South, where any of them could take it on a swing that is on the face of it reasonable, but actually belies the truth that a party is placing 4th. --New Progressive (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, I get what you mean. Norwich North is a particularly rare and unusual example though! personally I'd be against putting the same seat in more than one column. May I suggest we add an extra table for seats such as this; where there are 3 or more close contenders for the seat (based on previous results). We could call it "Battle Ground Seats", where you have the seat name in the row, a column for each contending party and their needed swings in each part of the column. In the instance where the party has the seat, we just put "sitting MP". I think that's a workable suggestion! <font color="#8000FF">Nick <font color="#8000FF">  17:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk)

There should remain 27 target seats for all three (please vote and sign below)
I think 27 but I think we should include UUP in the Conservatives column and just put in brackets (UUP) because the UUP and the Cons have a joint ticket in Northern Ireland. This solution also solves the problem of whether or not to include UUP or not because really when they havent got any seats and the party is constantly shrinking consistenty, I see little argument to keep them in on there own merrit. It's also worth noting that for EP elections where UUP and Cons have a joint ticket they are included in the same column for results, the UUP member has a bracket next to her name. <font color="#8000FF">Nick <font color="#8000FF">  14:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I think at the same time as the UKIP review in 2013, we should also have a review of UKIP target seats depending on whether UKIP have maintained their poll standing and improved their actual number of seats at councils sufficiently! I also believe we should put UUP in Tory column as Nick said. It's more consistent, solves the problem of whethe to include or not and it just makes sense!
 * No, the UUP and Conservatives have since re-separated and are competing against each other in Northern Ireland. Bondegezou (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? I can't find anything on this. They're still together in the EP and I can't find anything to sa that, also wiki's article on ulster cons and union... doesn't say anything on it! <font color="#8000FF">Nick <font color="#8000FF">  18:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk)
 * I've just been editing some of the relevant pages! It's not been well-covered, but Northern Ireland Conservatives has some cites. The UUP has long sat with the Tories in the European Parliament, but how the precise relationship now works for the UUP MEP who was elected under the UCUNF banner, I don't know. Bondegezou (talk) 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

There should be 15 target seats for all three (please vote and sign below)
====There should be 'n' seats for Labour and the Conservatives, and 't' seats for the Liberal Democrats. "n" and "t" represent different values but the difference in value is not determined. (please vote and sign below)====

====There should be 'n' seats for Labour, 's' seats for the Conservatives, and 't' seats for the Liberal Democrats. 'n', 's', and 't' represent different values but the difference in value is not determined (please vote and sign below)==== I'm happy with the current situation (27, or 25 if you want, for each party) for now, but nearer the election, if reliable sources are all talking about more target seats for some parties than others, then we should follow that. A small number of target seats for the minor GB parties and for the various NI parties seems fine to me. Bondegezou (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy to have columns for different parties at different lengths, provided that we're reflecting reality. I really don't see a problem with that. Since the Torys are the largest party they are bound tohave fewer target seats then Labour. Another reason for including UUP in their column... because there is bound to be more space!<font color="#8000FF">Nick <font color="#8000FF">  14:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

List all and every seat that would change on a swing of < n %
Objective, no reason to accuse of bias. I would suggest 3%. That will illustrate parties that might have grounds to expect to do better at the next election than the last one. Kevin McE (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)