Talk:List of MPs elected in the 2005 United Kingdom general election

Old discussions
I've deleted this list as almost all of them are now incorrect with the new constituency naming structure and editing individual entries to match correct locations would take ages! Use the list at WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies instead --Vamp:Willow 13:16, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Having a starting list of MPs from the last election stikes me as too dangerous. It will not be possible to know which constituencies have been updated and which have not. I have therefore added two new columns to hold the MP and party elected in the election. I did consider remove the previous MPs entirely as they probably don't belong in this list. However, I have left the names their as it would make copy and pasting easier where MPs haven't changed. I am still hopeful there will be a way to do the whole table in one go. MarkS 19:02, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I am just c+ping the current MP if it is a hold. With results coming in this fast it is too difficult to update any changes. These can be done later. Lan3y - Talk 00:17, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Sheesh, my arm hurts now. I'm going to take a rest for a bit. If anyone wants to take over then feel free, otherwise I will carry on later. Lan3y - Talk 00:29, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The diagram i have put on this page has a lot of white space around it. why? please, can someone help - i have spent too long on it and reached the edge of my wikibility.
 * A.K.A.47 15:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The edges are fine now, but you really shouldn't use a JPEG to do the work of a PNG - it has quite visible artifacts on it, compared to Image:Parliament-53.png. See Image use policy, rule of thumb no. 9. --rbrwr&plusmn; 20:50, 7 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, OK - Thanks for the tip, which I will observe in future (although i think this one looks a bit more arty!)
 * A.K.A.47 16:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

All constituencies now have links to the appropriate constituency page (I hope) Maltaran 21:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

MPs elected in 2005 versus current list of MPs
I feel that the page is cumbersome at the moment since it is dealing with the 2005 election results and tracking changes since then (e.g. for the death of the recent MP). I propose that we create two pages:
 * Keep this page called MPs elected in 2005 (including Patsy Colton and the result of south staffs when known). This list should never change after the south staffs result is known.
 * create another page based on this one called something like "Current Members of the UK Parliament" which can then track the changes to 2005 result, and will still be maintained after the next election.

If we don't make a change like this now, we will actually lose the historical record which an encyclopedia should track

Any Comments? ChrisUK 21:59, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I definately agree, suggest it be called Current Members of the House of Commons in the UK rather than 'UK parliament', unless we want to include the lords in that as well. -- Joolz 02:11, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
 * We should not include house of lords since they are not related to the election (of course there could be a separate page for them anyway). Is house of commons unique across the globe (I have a feeling that the ozzies might call it that as well) in which case we should disambiguate.  I have ammended your link as a proposal. ChrisUK 09:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The format well established at MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001, MPs elected in the UK general election, 1997, etc. is to list the general election winners, followed by details of changes in the course of the parliament. This does make the title of the page technically incorrect, as I pointed out when I added by-election data to the 2001 list. There was a suggestion that that article should be moved to "53rd Parliament of the United Kingdom" or some such, but it never came off. A "list of current MPs" article might be a good thing, but the current system is capable of keeping the historical record correctly. --rbrwr&plusmn; 10:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This does indeed seem to handle the historical record, but then makes it difficult to see the current list. On balance it is probably better to have one list rather than two to maintain.  There could be an additional results table though - one to reflect the result in 2005 and one to reflect the current composition. ChrisUK 20:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * "House of Commons MPs for the 53rd Parliament of the United Kingdom", perhaps. Plain "53rd Parliament of the United Kingdom" would include the Lords, as would "MPs for the 53rd Parliament of the United Kingdom", of course.
 * James F. (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Partialy disagree, because one MP elected in the general election has already died, so keeping this list would be a useful history page. Joe D (t) 21:17, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Question
Is the Graphical representation of the House of Commons (which I found it really great) reflects the real position of the seats and the shape of the UK house of commons (rectangular shape with a rocket-like gap in the middle)? CG 07:31, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, the chamber has benches rather than individual seats, and I don't know the precise seating arrangements of the minor parties, but yes the graphic does show the general layout of the chamber although there isn't enough room for all MPs to sit if they all turn up at once (if I recall correctly, there's room for a little over 400 of them to sit down) and late-comers have to stand at the end of the chamber opposite the Speaker (presumably represented by the "tongue" of red extending from the right). -- Arwel 11:22, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, that isn't a realistic representation! The House has two parallel sides of five rows of benches each with a gangway at each end and one in the middle. The Government sit on the Speaker's right and "front bench" refers to the set of benches (on each side) that are at the end of the Speaker's Chair, and "back bench" to the opposite end. The majority opposition use the "front bench" on the left with other parties, roughly in decreasing size, working back/up from the front/centre. There are a few benches or part-benches facing the speaker for officials. --Vamp:Willow 11:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Except that if you watch the parliamentary TV coverage you will notice that the Lib Dem leadership sit on the front opposition bench, further down the chamber from the Speaker and the Tory leadership; The SNP and Plaid Cymru members seem to sit a few rows behind the Lib Dems, and the NI members are in the same general area. The opposition benches at the Speakers' end are solidly Tory. -- Arwel 12:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * LibDems sit on the *back* opposition bench ... "Front" in parly terms refers to the five rows of benches nearest the speaker *not* to those nearest the central aisle. I'll write something about the layout / seating - have just done a quick edit on the image as the lump of MPs in the middle was clearly misleading people --Vamp:Willow 12:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone with some researches improve the graphical representation of the UK house of common so it become more realistic? CG 12:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Colours
One suggestion on the FLC is to use the party colours, so I've had an attempt at implementing a scheme. I didn't want to do it *all* and then find someone's got a better idea, so this is my idea here -- Joolz 14:27, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding to my FLC comment - that was the sort of thing I meant. Looks fine to me (although the empty cell could be a touth wider.  One of my other comments (adding specific column widths) could help - I've had a go above. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks good now (I'll tried and failed to make the width wider ;) - I'll go and implement it :) -- Joolz 15:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It may be worth waiting a day or two to see whether anyone else has comments.  Unless you feel impelled to be bold, that is :) -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It may take a day or two to implement the thing ;) -- Joolz 15:30, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This may need to be rethought, I had a go at implementing it (rather unsuccessfully) because it doubles the length of the page (up to around 218kb) -- Joolz 19:29, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Observations
I've noticed that some of the other lists (e.g MPs elected in the UK general election, 1966) have the A, B, C (et al) titles inside the tables, instead of outside. Which do people prefer? Also, is the "Previous MP" column slightly unneccessary, it's nice to have but the list might be better without it and just have the 'previous party'? -- Joolz 15:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * [Edit conflict] I prefer the headings outside (as here), but, doesn't it look rather odd to have "3. A" ? Should the "A, B, C ... " headings be level 3 ("3.1 A"; "3.2 B" ...)?  I also like the "previous MP" column: in all, this list is much better than MPs elected in the UK general election, 1966 and indeed MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001 (although the diagram on the latter is does not have the blocky artefacts like this one).  This one should set the standard to which the others can aspire.  -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this version: -- Joolz 17:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, not as nice nor as informative: the name of the MP can change as well as the party. -- ALoan (Talk) 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I would argue that it's better not to have the previous MP because it's better covered on the 2001 page, after all this is a list of MPs elected in 2005, the only thing interesting is whether the party has changed, not really whether the MP has changed. The other problem with it is that there were 659 MPs in 2001, and 646 now, so some of them are only notionally the previous MP -- Joolz 17:19, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh, in reply to your other comment, I'm not sure what you mean about it being 3. A, do you mean that it should be done with === these level headings or? -- Joolz 17:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, to my mind, 2001 should show the actual results of 2001 plus a separate section showing subsequent changes (by-elections and so on).
 * Yes, three "=" (perhaps this is level 2, but there is also "level zero" with one "=" - reminds me of the first floor of buildings in the US being the ground floor). -- ALoan (Talk) 17:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Previous MPs
I want to remove the previous MPs+Party column, although it's interesting it's covered by the 2001 list already; it adds substantially to the length of the page and makes it unwieldy and as someone pointed out on the FLC page some of the previous MPs are purely notional because of boundary changes/constituency creations, what does everyone think? -- Joolz 14:36, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Good idea! do it :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Two missing
East Yorkshire and East Worthing and Shoreham seem to be missing... Sjorford 11:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. sjorford mmmmm  09:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

SDLP
Shouldn't the SDLP be included on the Labour side of the graphical representation as they accept the Labour whip?
 * It seems to be an informal arrangement - they sit on the opposition benches, as far as I can tell. — sjorford++ 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed how everybody keeps reporting the number of Conservative MPs in the House Of Commons as 195. It is currently 197. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.26.145 (talk) 10:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Southwesterner258 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC) The arrangement between the SDLP and Labour was informal, but if you watch any video clips of parliament from 1997-2010 you will see SDLP members sitting on the government benches.

Labour/Co-operative MP’s
Shouldn't they be a different colour other than red? As strickly speaking, they are not only or exclusively "Labour" 81.111.221.11 (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure a different colour is necessary - they are treated the same as other Labour MPs when in the house, and there is no national Co-operative Party campaign, so for most practical purposes they are just Labour. — sjorford++ 08:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, because I also believe that the co-op/Labour groups should have their own colour, as they are representing two parties at the same time. (217.42.240.189 (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Do the Co-operative MPs use a different colour though? In their campaign literature, on their websites? If not, if they just use the Labour colours, then we should do the same. — sjorford++ 12:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, after further examination on article one, they use a red slightly darker than Labour. However, the Co-operative party's website is light blue. So maybe we should use light blue for them?

1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_West_Derby_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

co-op party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-operative_Party

http://www.party.coop/

(217.42.240.189 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC))


 * The Co-operative party, whilst allied with Labour, DOES view itself as separate political party – and not just a faction within Labour or a splinter group. They have their own website, own annual conference, own financial resources and own party grouping and structure. On this advert Co-op they say “we work in partnership with the Labour Party as its sister party”    So I think there can be no doubt that the Co-operative Party is separate and autonomous from Labour, despite there collobative arrangement. And it’s only because both parties think alike that they work together.


 * A Question for Answering: If Labour went further to the right, or sought an allience with the Lib Dems, would the Co-operative Party still wish to continue the Lab/Co-op arrangement and take the Labour whip? (Myself: I’m not so sure) So I still believe a different colour other than red for Labour/Co-operative MP’s should be used, but obviously kept on the same side as Labour. As for colour, I’d prefer to use the blue that they use on there webiste and their “unoffical” logo. But it has to be discussed futher first. 81.111.221.11 (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what will happen if the lib-dems and Labour were to join, but as an ex-lib dem myself, I highly daught it will happen. However, I still do believe that the CO-OP party/ Labour should have their own list, because after all, the MPs representing them are a 50/50 party. (TheGreenwalker (talk) 20:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC))

54th General Election, not Parliament
The 54th it may be, but it's not the 54th parliament! A new parliament is constituted after each time the Queen summons one, and happens at the State Opening, which is each year nowadays. The House of Commons (which is only a part of Parliament, remember) may very well have the same members as when the previous parliament was proprogued at the start of the summer. What does this "54th" actually refer to? It is the 54th General Election ? Or something more obscure? This is a Wikipedia article, so we mustn't be inaccurate, even if politicians are misusing the terminology. Neuralwarp (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're wrong - the annual meetings are sessions of Parliament, not separate Parliaments. This is indeed the 54th Parliament of the United Kingdom, as established by Hansard. Please check this link which was the end of the previous session of the present Parliament on 26 November 2008: at the end it says "End of the Third Session (opened on 6 November 2007 ) of the Fifty-Fourth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the Fifty-Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second." Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ulster Unionist
The table at the top of the article is misleading, the number of MPs only adds up to 645 for the "election" column. This is because Sylvia Hermon hasn't been counted as an Ulster Unionist- there is no mention of the party here. Surely the table shouldn't just focus on the affiliation of MPs at dissolution? Especially as it is now inaccurate.Southwesterner258 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Composition
The first column of numbers in the composition table appears to add up to 645, not 646.--86.178.142.210 (talk) 06:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Never mind - as per the above comment, the UUP MP was missing, so added in. Also identified Peter Law as the independent at the election.--86.178.142.210 (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223120551/http://www.parliament.uk:80/directories/hcio/party.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/directories/hcio/party.cfm

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2005. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608182656/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2008/press_54_08.cfm to http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/newsroom_and_speeches/press/2008/press_54_08.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090131033631/http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/05/size-matters.html to http://britishconstitution.blogspot.com/2007/05/size-matters.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of MPs in the first United Kingdom Parliament which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)