Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Frinton100 (talk | contribs) at 19:11, 21 February 2015 (→Rigged boundaries). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 United Kingdom general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

view · edit Frequently asked questions Many of these questions arise frequently on the talk page concerning the Next United Kingdom general election. To view an explanation to the answer, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why have you listed the parties in this order in the infobox? A1: An extensive process of discussion and narrowing-down of the available options culminated in this RfC, which concluded that the infobox should use the template {{Infobox election}}, and should display Labour, the Conservatives, the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. This should not be altered without altogether clear consensus on the talkpage.

This article was nominated for deletion on 20 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Politics of the United Kingdom Unassessed Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2015 United Kingdom general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months

UKIP Target Seats

Recently, after the European elections and local elections, UKIP leader, Nigel Farage has repeatedly emphasised that he want to follow the "Paddy Ashdown" strategy and "ruthlessly" target "10-20 seats" at this election. If there is an announcement of a target seat list from UKIP, could it be included on this page, considering that the main media narrative is how many seats will UKIP win it seems odd to keep them off the target seats section Guyb123321 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC) The article is here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/24/ukip-hitlist-20-seats-commons Guyb123321 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

... but any list of target seats needs to come from reliable sources. I don't think we can come up with that list ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before reliable sources emerge with a formal list of target seats but really we do need a reliable source for this. I shouldn't expect one will emerge until after the summer. That said there is nothing to stop us putting a note in the article that UKIP are preparing a list of target seats, or whatever, if of course we can find a reliable source that says that they are. To me this seems a sensible interim solution until any such list is produced/can be reliably sourced. Owl In The House (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that. Note can say that Farage has said the party will select some seats and target efforts, referencing Paddy Ashdown's approach with the Liberal Democrats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that UKIP may come out with a target seat list in September, at the same time as they unveil their parties policy manifesto, until then a note sounds good Guyb123321 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I was right, a tiny bit earlier than September - Here's the list of twelve seats http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-reveals-list-of-12-seats-it-plans-to-target-in-general-election--and-nine-of-them-are-tory-9691712.html

Can it be added? Guyb123321 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Heywood and Middleton is a ukip target seat, 2,2 difference.81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Now end of 2014 UKIP 2 MPs and in the lead in several other constituencies e.g. Skegness. Should be added as if this trend stays they would have bigge share of vote than Liberal Democrats and a similar number of MPs. 30/12/14 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.26.36 (talk) 20:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Correct infobox

Which parties in the infobox?

- Conservative Party - Labour Party - Liberal Democrats

- UK Independence Party? - Green Party?

- Scottish National Party?????

What you think?81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

UKIP is third in the polls and therefore should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.26.36 (talk) 11:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, 81.141.26.36. If you look further down this Talk page, you'll see a lengthy discussion over what to do with the infobox. Feel free to chime in there. Bondegezou (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ann Clwyd

Ann Clwyd has announced her intention to stand down, and then changed her mind, it seems. Over the last couple of days, she has been deleted from the list of MPs standing down, and then reinstated. I can see arguments for including and not including, but I think it probably needs discussion rather than edit warring. My own suggestion would be that mention should be made in a note, rather than in the full listing, because inclusion in the full listing of an MP that isn't standing down is very odd, and also means that the total isn't the immediately obvious number. DrArsenal (talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DrArsenal, you probably have stopped me from edit warring. I think it is probably best if we keep her in the list for now, with the note indicating her intention to stand again, as this is more accurate than removing her completely. I can see the other side of the argument, but would rather include her not not. doktorb _words 14:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

New infobox proposal

2015 United Kingdom general election

← 2010 7 May 2015
← outgoing members
All 650 seats to the House of Commons 326 seats are needed for a majority.
Leader David Cameron Ed Miliband Nick Clegg Party Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Leader since 6 December 2005 25 September 2010 18 December 2007 Leader's seat Witney Doncaster North Sheffield Hallam Last election 306 seats, 36.1% 258 seats, 29% 57 seats, 23% Seats needed 20 68 269   Leader Nigel Farage Natalie Bennett Nicola Sturgeon Party UKIP Green SNP Leader since 5 November 2010 3 September 2012 14 November 2014 Last election 0 seats, 3% 1 seats, 1% 6 seats, 2%
Incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative

So, the debate about UKIP being infobox repeatedly resurfaces. But if UKIP is included, then it's difficult to see why the Greens and SNP shouldn't be included. After all, the Greens are regularly polling as having the same level of support as the Lib Dems, and the SNP are predicted to win about 20-30 seats. In addition, these parties are mentioned in the news fairly often (as opposed to, say, the DUP, who are almost never mentioned) Some have said this election is heading for a six-party race.

In light of this, wouldn't it be a good idea to have the three traditional main parties on the first line, followed underneath by the other three noteworthy parties? This is only a rough idea, something to think about. I don't know how it sits in relation to current policy. Chessrat (talk) 12:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I quite like it, it looks nice, it feels kinda right, but I'm afraid I'm not convinced by it. What I've long said is that we should follow what reliable sources do, e.g. we should follow the Ofcom list of major parties. However, that hasn't been published for the 2015 general election yet. (You can see the 2014 report here to see what they look like and what was concluded then.) What Ofcom do is consider several factors -- support last time, support in other elections, polling &c. -- to come to an overall conclusion. That mixed approach of considering several indicators seems sensible and, I presume, is what Chessrat has done also.

If I had to choose right now, based on seats last time, current polling and probable seats next time, I'd go with Con, Lab, LDem and UKIP. Chessrat argues that "the Greens are regularly polling as having the same level of support as the Lib Dems". I think one could quibble over that: they're about the same, but the LibDems are higher slightly more often. The SNP are, of course, polling lower than either party. But this election is about winning seats, not vote share. The SNP are indeed likely to get many more seats (probably more than UKIP or the Greens), and indeed the LibDems are predicted to win many more seats than UKIP (who may well get a higher vote share) or the Greens (on around the same vote share). This seat/vote share balance complicates things. Why include the Greens, who could well get 0 seats and, at best, are probably only looking at 2 seats, when the SNP, Plaid Cymru, DUP, Sinn Fein and SDLP are all likely to get more seats? Indeed, the DUP could well get more seats than UKIP.

Current spread betting (see here) puts the LibDems on 30 seats, SNP on 20 seats and UKIP on 9.5 seats. Other betting has the odds on the Greens winning no more than 1 seat. There's less betting or polling interest in Northern Ireland, but only 3 Northern Irish seats have majorities below 5%, I think (SF could lose Fermanagh and South Tyrone to a joint unionist candidate; the DUP could regain Belfast East from Alliance; the UUP's best chance is to take South Antrim from the DUP), so the DUP could win 8 or 9 seats and SF are likely to be on 5. So, if we just think seats, current predictions would suggest this ordering: Lab, Con, LDem, SNP, UKIP, DUP, SF, Plaid/SDLP, Greens/Alliance/maybe Respect. That would imply a 6-party infobox should be Con, Lab, LDem in the top row, then SNP, DUP and UKIP in the second row. Bondegezou (talk) 16:33, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion, but I oppose this change. Having six leaders on the infobox prior to the election would work only if we had a proportional voting system. We don't. It would give to much prominence to them all (and if the SNP, why not Plaid?). doktorb _words 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Meanwhile an IP editor replaced Clegg's photo with Farage's (etc). In the process of sorting it out, I deleted, and it struck me that the current situation with the LDs being listed is pretty absurd, the biggest absurdity being the 'seats needed' for them. When they are as likely to be in 5th place in the polls as 4th, having them listed as 3rd is looking increasingly out-of-touch with reality. It took a real effort of will to add Clegg and the LDs back against my better judgement. Could consensus be achieved for a two party info box? DrArsenal (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But the last election result showed that the LibDems can form part of a government, so they should still be included on that basis. doktorb _words 23:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing we should remove the Lib Dems but including them on the basis that they might form part of a coalition is not a great argument for the status quo as so might any of the other parties likely to be elected to seats in 2015. Indeed I think we'd struggle to find any reliable sources stating that Lib Dems can gain 269 seats and form a majority government. To that extent I'd support removing the seats needed information from the Lib Dem entry while leaving them in the infobox.

I agree we need to await reliable sources but a couple of technical questions for people in the meantime:

I think it has been stated further up the page that the maximum number of parties that can be accommodated in the infobox is 9? Is this correct?

Also can we only have a single infobox on the article? One thought that occurred to me was to have an initial infobox for the parties that reliable sources suggest can form a majority government including information like the seat required for a majority. It seems likely at present this would only contain Conservatives and Labour. You could then have a secondary infobox for the other parties that reliable sources suggest are likely to: receive a significant share of the vote, return MPs, form part of a government etc. The bar might be set as reliable sources stating a party could win in more than one seat and thus possibly forming part of a future coalition government. This could be something like: Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, DUP, Sinn Féin, PC, SDLP.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 11:34, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say again that it's seats that matter, not vote share. The LibDems could come 5th in vote share (although I think there are reasons to think that unlikely), but nearly all predictions put them third on seats (they could be overtaken by the SNP). Bondegezou (talk) 13:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

It's useful to look at what other election articles do. I note, for example, that United Kingdom general election, 1951 includes the Liberals in the infobox when they got just 6 seats and 2.5% of the vote. I guess that partly reflects a historical perspective of the Liberals as the clear third party for much of the 20th century, so it makes sense to include them in the infobox even at their lowest ebb.

The most recent UK general election article to have an infobox with other than Con/Lab/LDem is United Kingdom general election, 1931, which has Con, Lab, Liberal National, Liberal, National Labour (13 seats, 1.5% vote share) and Independent Liberal (4 seats, 0.5% vote share). Again, that partly represents a historical perspective, I guess. The Liberal and Labour splits were politically significant, even if their eventual performance was low. United Kingdom general election, 1922 has 4 parties in the infobox, which seems right for that election. The 6 party infobox for United Kingdom general election, 1918 also seems right. However, it seems odd to me that United Kingdom general election, December 1910 and United Kingdom general election, January 1910 include All-for-Ireland League. It's also interesting to see when Labour are first included in the infobox. Labour won no seats in 1895 and aren't in the infobox. They are included in United Kingdom general election, 1900 even though they only got 2 seats and 1.8% of the vote. Again, through the lens of history, we can the significance of this result. Well, that was mildly interesting, but what does it tell us? I'm not certain, but I guess it persuades me that we should be being more inclusive. If historically parties like the Liberals in 1951, National Labour, All-for-Ireland and the Labour party at its beginnings get included, then we can surely include more parties now. However, what I also see is that infoboxes have a historical perspective: it's much easier to see what's significant after the fact! But the most telling observation is that infoboxes are ordered by seats won and do not skip parties. If, after the election, the Greens have 2 seats in the Commons, if you want them in the infobox, you'll have to include every party with more than 2 seats. If UKIP get fewer seats than the DUP and you want to include UKIP, then you'll have to include the DUP. Bondegezou (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

What about infoboxes for other forthcoming elections? Consider Spanish general election, 2015. This has 6 parties in its infobox, the six biggest parties at the previous election. Look at Opinion polling for the Spanish general election, 2015 and you will see that new party Podemos, which didn't exist last time around, is currently leading in the polls and has been in the top three for the last 6 months. So far, editors there have chosen to leave the infobox reflecting the previous election result and not acknowledging the rise of Podemos, although the article text does talk about their phenomenal rise.

Consider also Next Greek legislative election, where "seats needed" is given even for the smallest parties in the infobox. That's also true of Spanish general election, 2015, where "seats needed" is given for UPyD, a party as unlikely to win that election as the LibDems are to win here. However, Spanish general election, 2015 says "Unable" for "seats needed" for two regional parties in their infobox.

Danish general election, 2015 is very inclusive, an infobox with 9 parties, down to the Christian Democrats who didn't win any seats at the previous election, on a vote share of 0.9%. That article, meanwhile, doesn't use "seats needed" at all.

Next Irish general election also doesn't use "seats needed". That infobox only has 4 parties, yet Irish general election, 2011 includes 8 parties, including some tiny ones.

Polish parliamentary election, 2015 also doesn't use "seats needed", and is again very inclusive: 6 parties, down to the KNP who got 0 seats and 1% at the previous election.

So, if we are to go for a more inclusive infobox, but respect current seats, what about a 9-party infobox listed by current MPs, going Con, Lab, LDem, DUP, SNP, SF, Plaid, SDLP and finishing with UKIP? Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, every single example you give for a future election the order is that of the vote share at the last election - that happens in those polities to be the same as the order of the number of seats. In the UK, where they often differ, we have a more difficult decision to make, and it is no good pretending that we don't. DrArsenal (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Which is why we need a compromise solution using many methods. Putting only Lab/Con, as DrArsenal suggested, doesn't really show enough information. By vote share, the top six are Con/Lab/Lib/UKIP/SNP/Green (by both last election and opinion polling, I believe). In addition, those are the only parties mentioned seriously and regularly in reliable sources. Using only one source will inevitably generate inaccuracies; the only argument for Plaid/SF/DUP/SDLP's inclusion is current number of seats. Hence why it's probably not appropriate to include them instead of, say, the Green Party, despite the Green Party having taken fewer seats in 2010. Chessrat (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Or if we went to the other extreme, given 9 is the maximum in the info box, the 9 parties with the highest share of the vote at the 2010 General Election who also have had at least one MP at some point in the Parliament, ie Con/Lab/LD/UKIP/SNP/Green/SF/DUP/Plaid Cymru? This means that Plaid are included as well as SNP, and there is one party from each side of the divide in NorthernIreland. DrArsenal (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

DrArsenal, I recognise that vote share and seats can differ and that this raises complications. Indeed, it's the main problem we face. What I am saying is that the solution to the problem already exists in established practice, and it is that seats trump vote share.

Seat order and vote share order is generally the same for the bigger parties, but when they have differed, prior UK general election article infoboxes have always listed parties by seats won, not by votes (see United Kingdom general election, 1931, United Kingdom general election, 1918 and of course United Kingdom general election, 1951). If we look at Indian elections, as somewhere else using FPTP, again we see parties listed by seats won, not by votes (Indian general election, 1996). The same is true of Canada: see Canadian federal election, 2006 or Canadian federal election, 2008.

Once the results are in of the 2015 UK election, it would be a major shift in practice were we to list parties by vote share rather than by seats. And if we look at seats won after the election, I think that should guide our thinking now, before the election.

This is an article about an election, not about the proportion of the populace who support different parties. An election is ultimately about winning seats. I'd abolish FPTP tomorrow if I could, but dem's da rules the election is under. I recognise Chessrat's point: the Greens get more attention than the SDLP or Plaid Cymru. It is a challenge, but if seats don't trump vote share, we're going to get into all sorts of problems IMHO.

(42nd Canadian federal election is another interesting example, BTW. It lists all 6 parties currently represented in Parliament, including Forces et Démocratie, who are new and polling more or less nothing. So, another example erring on the side of inclusion. This suggests to me that we should be thinking of a 9-party infobox, whichever 9 we pick!) Bondegezou (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That's all very well, Bondegezou, but there is no reliable way to determine now how many seats each party will get: what basis do we have now for deciding which party to list first? Should we list SNP before LDs because many commentators think they will get more seats than the LDs? The key question is what we do for the 5 months until we do know. To me, we need to either go for 'just two' or 'as many as possible'. Pretty much anything inbetween is too controversial, although there would, I think, be some logic in excluding Northern Ireland parties from the infobox, because they have a completely different political system there. DrArsenal (talk) 12:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree as to the nature of the problem. Indeed, there is no reliable way to determine now how many votes each party will get either. What I suggest is that we agree on what the post-election infobox might look like (and it seems to me that has to be by number of seats) and then we work backwards to what is reasonable to do now.

The general approach has been to list parties by how well they did last time, but adding any new(er) parties that have risen significantly since then, often by sticking them at the end.

In terms of 'just two' or 'as many as possible', I vote for 'as many as possible'.

Northern Ireland does have a different political system, but the article is about the United Kingdom general election, not just about the Great British general election. Our readers in Northern Ireland should not be excluded, and seats won by Northern Irish parties may matter if there's a close result. While many of us are reading a London-based media that often focuses on UKIP or the Greens, the media in Northern Ireland are talking about the DUP and SF, the media in Wales talk about Plaid, the media in Scotland talk about the SNP.

If one agrees with all those principles, putting all that together, that implies to me a 9-party infobox, ordered by current seats, i.e. Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, Plaid, SDLP, UKIP. However, I acknowledge that that is rather different from earlier suggestions of an infobox based on current (GB) polling, which would have UKIP and the Greens higher. But I can't see how the Greens are going to be in a post-election infobox without a radical change in infobox practice (or a radical change in their levels of support), so why include them now?

Or, we leave it as it is until Ofcom say who the "major parties" are. Bondegezou (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Relevant reliable source coverage: "All the possible coalition combinations for next year's election" and "Traditional model of politics 'cracking apart' as hung parliament looms again" mention Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, DUP and SNP. "The parties prepare for a hung, drawn and quartered parliament" mentions Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, DUP, SNP and UUP. But then "2015 Elections: Labour won't win a majority, and neither will the Tories" completely ignores Northern Ireland and just mentions Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens and SNP. While "Projecting the result of the May 2015 general election" gives a quite detailed projection of Lab 278, Con 277, SNP/PC combined 48, LDem 27, DUP 9, SF 5, SDLP 3, UKIP 1, Green 1, Sylvia Harmon 1. Bondegezou (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly agree the NI parties need to be included in the article. I'm less sure about the info box, though, because whatever happens, they will be 18 'others' - they don't influence the election across the rest of the UK. By contrast 5 parties will each contest, and influence (in their different ways), the outcome in the large majority of seats across the UK. SNP and Plaid Cymru will, similarly, each have an influence on a larger number of constituencies than the all the NI parties put together will.

Thanks, Bondegezou, for those really useful links to coverage in reliable sources. I'm not sure the inclusion of NI in the last of them should be seen as significant - the Belfast Telegraph would always look for an NI angle whatever. Of the other sources, we have mentioned x3 Con, Lab, LDem, UKIP, Greens, and SNP. mentioned x2 DUP. mentioned once UUP. DrArsenal (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Belfast Telegraph does have a NI perspective, but we have to reflect all perspectives. And their article stands as a detailed prediction of the election result. My views on what to do have changed as I've thought through the different perspectives and challenges. What currently dominates my thinking is this: it would be a significant break from precedent were we to list in the infobox a party with fewer seats than a party omitted from the infobox. I can't see any examples of that having been done before. So, after the 2015 election, it would be odd to include the Greens while excluding parties with (probably) more seats, like DUP and SF. If that's odd after the election, it must be odd before it too. However, I take your point about constituencies being stood in. Bondegezou (talk) 08:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Radical idea

So, we could break the article into 4, for the four constituent nations. Keep an overall infobox, but then also have an infobox for England (Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, GPE&W, ?Respect), Wales (Lab, Con, LD, Plaid, UKIP, ?GPE&W), Scotland (Lab, SNP, LD, Con, ?UKIP, ?SGP) and Northern Ireland (DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UUP, ?TUV, ?UKIP, ?NI21). Each section could then also discuss particular election issues relevant to each area (the independence referendum and surge in SNP support in Scotland; UUP and DUP talking about a partial electoral pact in NI). Bondegezou (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

On a separate note, I've been looking through Template_talk:Infobox_election for any help on these issues. I didn't find much. The only vaguely relevant thing was this past discussion: Template_talk:Infobox_election/Archive_3#Popular_vote_winner_in_bold.3F. This was about the 2000 US Presidential election where the winner didn't get the most votes, so this is a bit like our problem where parties may have stronger vote shares but win fewer seats. The discussion was bit inconclusive, but the end result at United States presidential election, 2000 is that Bush is listed before Gore as winner and his electoral votes line is bolded, but the popular vote share is bolded for Gore. Not certain that helps much, but I thought I'd mention it... Bondegezou (talk) 13:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree with a less radical version of this- NI politics are utterly different to the rest of the UK, but Wales and Scotland are pretty similar. So how about a seven-party Great Britain infobox with Cons, Lab, Lib Dem, UKIP, Green, SNP, PC. The infobox would have a note pointing to the Northern Ireland parties further down. And, further down the page, have a Northern Ireland section with five parties: DUP, SF, SDLP, UUP, Alliance. The main (Great Britain) infobox would have three rows: Lab and Con on first row, LD and UKIP on second row (3rd and 4th parties by both expected seat count and expected vote share); and Green, SNP, PC on third row (5th, 6th, and 7th parties by both expected seat count and expected vote share). This somewhat reconciles the vote share/seat number differences.Chessrat (talk) 13:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd support the split between NI and GB infoboxes as being a neat way to split the article and reflect the fundamentally different situation in NI. In terms of parties and ordering though the NI infobox should probably have 6 parties to also include Sylvia Hermon as an incumbent MP. For a GB infobox I'd agree with Bondegezou that we stick to listing by number of seats as this has been the historic precedent and makes most sense in the FPTP system. This then only leaves a decision as whether this should be by current seats (Con, Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, PC, UKIP, Green and probably also Respect) or predicted seats in RS (Con or Lab, Lib Dem or SNP, UKIP, PC or Green, exclude Respect?). Not sure where Chessrat's seat count estimates come from but not aware of any RS suggesting Green will get more than 1-2 seats while RS are suggesting SNP could get 20-40 seats. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:22, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andrewdpcotton, Bondegezou and Chessrat. These seem like interesting ideas that are worth taking further. Is anybody able to mock them up? Personally, I very much doubt that 'predicted seats' will work as an organising basis - there are too many different predictions already, and there will be so many more, with some in what we might otherwise think of as 'reliable sources' being wildly different from others. I would suggest sequence should be number of seats at last General Election, with share of the vote at the last GE as a tie-breaker if needed (including Con, Lab, Lib Dem, SNP, PC, UKIP, Green and Respect). The 'last General Election' criterion is also relevant in showing the difference between Sylvia Hermon and independents in Britain who were originally elected for a party. DrArsenal (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – One United Kingdom, one general election. The idea of making separate article areas only to satisfy people's desire for more infoboxes is absurd. Infoboxes are not important, nor a necessity. The best solution is just to kibosh it all together. The idea of Misplaced Pages partitioning the UK is absurd. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I respect User:RGloucester's point. I am keen that there remains an overall infobox for the whole election at the top of the article, as we have for every other UK general election article. My suggestion -- and it is radical and maybe a step too far -- is for additional infoboxes for subsections, but ultimately this is one election (with two parties standing across GB and NI: Conservative and UKIP), so I think there has to be one infobox at the top. When someone is trying to assemble a majority after the next election, it doesn't matter one bit whether the supporting MPs come from GB or NI!

Infoboxes generally (but not always, I think) order by results at the previous election or current seat totals.

As for who to include for Northern Ireland (if we do have a separate infobox), among current MPs, there are 8 DUP, 5 SF, 3 SDLP, 1 Alliance and Lady Hermon. In the NI Assembly, there is 38 DUP, 29 SF, 14 SDLP, 13 UUP, 8 Alliance, 2 independents and 1 each TUV, Green, UKIP and NI21 (the latter two being defections). There are 3 NI MEPs: 1 DUP, 1 SF, 1 UUP. The most recent polling had DUP 25.9%, SF, 24.0%, SDLP 15.1%, UUP 11.8%, Alliance 6.2%, TUV 5.2%, UKIP 0.9%, Green 0.5%, NI21 0.4% and 10.0% for others. So, I think one would definitely include DUP, SF, UUP (no current MP, but do have an MEP, solid Assembly representation and polling and generally recognised by reliable sources as one of the main parties), SDLP and Alliance, ordered by number of current seats. I don't think it makes sense to include Lady Hermon as an independent. The argument, it seems to me, is whether one should include TUV, who did get someone elected to the Assembly and poll above 5%, and just below Alliance. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Remove all infoboxes from the article. Let the prose do the work. Clearly this is controversial, and there is no need over-simplify the situation into a clunky box. Multiple boxes would ruin the design of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

On an entirely unrelated note, I hope you all enjoyed my recent research study on Misplaced Pages editors: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 (focusing on health, rather than politics)! (There's also a Signpost article at Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2014-12-03/Op-ed.) Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another useful citation: Bondegezou (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
• One UK, one article, one infobox. doktorb _words 14:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

That infobox shown at the top is what it should be like anyway. UKIP, Greens and the SNP will win seats in Westminster at the 2015 General Election. Ignore the polls, they are, in my opinion, useless in trying to work out the results of a general election because they do not represent the opinion of the whole country. Only a small region and number of people. Also a separate infobox is needed for NI, All those parties in one box will get crowded. Maybe even create another NI Election results section. ExtraTropical11 (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Another possible citation of relevance, saying the SNP could be the 3rd largest party by seats. Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree on any general principles?

We're still going round in circles on this one. Would it be useful to try to agree on some underlying general principles? Do we, or do we not, agree on the following? Feel free to comment on each point separately, as I have done below, or to add additional principles. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Seats trump votes: while votes cast or likely votes to be cast has some significance, the infobox is primarily about seats.

Agreed. This has been the practice for all prior FPTP Parliamentary elections I've looked at. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Follow precedent and UK system based on seats not votes. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The UK system, and perhaps most importantly Misplaced Pages policy, puts seats above votes. There's no reason to change this. doktorb _words 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. “Seats above votes” is fair enough, but “Seats trump votes” actually means ‘totally ignore votes except where parties are level on seats’, which by implication totally ignores what reliable sources will be doing with respect to the election. We simply can’t totally ignore who reliable sources include and don’t include for the sake of a local consensus about a ‘principle’. And what count of seats is used? Seats declared as results in 2010, or current seats? Are the three independents counted as a group of three, or as three entirely separate individuals? Are Sinn Féin included because they were elected, or excluded because they don’t take up their seats? On some combinations of answers to those questions, SDLP will be included, but UKIP won’t be, and trying to discuss the principles without any attention to such an implication could just lead us to a situation with near endless attempts by those aggrieved to change the box. So some decisions about how you count seats lead to situations where I would vehemently oppose ‘seats trump votes’. A formula that includes both seats and votes, where seats virtually always trump votes would, however, be a different matter. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• One UK, one infobox.

Agreed. I suggested extra infoboxes above, but my suggestion was that these would be supplementary to the main article infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Partially Agreed. I still think NI is sufficiently different that it could be better covered by a separate infobox but perhaps an additional infobox is a better solution allowing the larger NI parties (DUP, Sinn Fein, SDLP) to be in main UK infobox and secondary one to cover other NI parties. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We have to reflect the electoral system as well as the constitutional situation to be accurate. doktorb _words 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agnostic. I don’t see any great reason to include Northern Irish parties that don’t organise in the rest of the UK in the main info box. Whether that means two info boxes or NI parties being excluded from info box inclusion, when a number of parties with less MPs (but more electoral and political significance across the UK as a whole) are included in the only infobox is not an issue I am enormously bothered about either way. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox can take into account what happened at the last election, the current state of play (e.g. defections and by-elections since then) and reliably sourced predictions. None of those trumps the other.

Agreed. Infoboxes for forthcoming elections are often based on the previous result. I think that's a good starting point, but I think if the situation has shifted (and that is reliably shown), then it would be wrong to ignore developments. A common approach to date has been to keep the infobox based on the previous result, but to add any new/rising parties at the end of the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But this needs to be based on predicted state of play as regards seats likely to be won rather than likely vote share or number of seats contested. If a party isn't going to get any seats, it shouldn't be in the infobox. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Dubious. I accept that the situation vis-a-vis UKIP/Greens is significant, but we have to be careful about any precedent caused by adding them to the infobox. This is only the second general election Misplaced Pages has covered properly "live", so we're still feeling around for rules I guess. We have gone back-and-forth with IP editors adding UKIP to the box for about 4 years, I suppose we'll have to make a decision eventually. doktorb _words 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it is important that the resultant decisions are consistent, not arbitrary, and reflect reliable sources, which will be difficult balance to achieve. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• The infobox is a summary: it does not need to cover every party, or every party winning seats.

Agreed. Some infoboxes, to avoid controversy, have opted to be very inclusive. I'm happy for infoboxes to be inclusive and list a fair few parties, but an infobox is ultimately a summary. It shouldn't include everyone: there should be limits on its size. Bondegezou (talk) 15:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. But if including Party X predicted to win 5 seats, you can't exclude Party Y who are predicted to win 10 seats even if they're contesting less seats overall.( Basically I'm saying if you want to include UKIP/Greens, I can't see any way to exclude SNP, DUP etc who are also predicted to get 5+ seats.) Andrewdpcotton (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. We've always set limits for infoboxes (by-election articles only for those candidates saving deposits etc). We should have the same principle of summary/limitation here. doktorb _words 17:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but it shouldn't exclude parties that are routinely included by reliable sources, while including other parties that are rarely mentioned by reliable sources, so the size chosen should probably be consistent with including all the parties that can regularly be seen in reliable sources. DrArsenal (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Attempted summary so far and suggestion

I realise some people may not be looking at Misplaced Pages over the festive period, so I don't wish to claim that the discussion above has necessarily run its course. It would be nice if more people could still wade in.

However, so far, discussion immediately above is mostly supportive of the basic principles I suggested, although there is not unanimity. I think we can also see more clearly where the fault lines are. There are, it seems to me, two big issues:

(1) Seats vs. votes, which is kind of tied up with past vs. present. On the one hand, we have an approach that looks at number of seats won in 2010/number of current seats/probable seats in 2015 (which favours parties like the LibDems, DUP and SF). On the other hand, we have an approach that looks at current polling/probable 2015 vote share/general political buzz (which favours parties like UKIP and the Greens).

(2) What to do about Northern Ireland? NI's distinct political parties fill up the infobox, making it harder to find a compromise that includes the likes of UKIP and the Greens.

To go into this in more detail: if we stuck with seats won last time, splitting ties by votes won, the ordering goes: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, Green Party of England & Wales , then Alliance, the Speaker, Lady Harmon, UKIP, BNP, UUP, Eng Dem, Respect, TUV.

If we go with current seats, splitting ties by 2010 votes won, we get: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP , Green Party of England & Wales, Alliance, Respect, the Speaker, Lady Harmon, BNP, UUP, Eng Dem, TUV.

If we go by polling, we run into the problem that there are no UK-wide polls. GB polling goes: Lab, Con (or the other way around), UKIP, LibDem, Greens (sometimes above LDs; note pollsters don't split between GPE&W and Scottish Greens, although the latter are so small they make little difference), with sometimes mention made of SNP, PC, and BNP. NI is ~2.9% of the UK population, so if you combined the GB and NI polling, the best polling NI parties (DUP and SF) would be around 0.7%, so below the SNP and battling it out with PC and BNP. So let's call current polling: Lab, Con, UKIP, LibDem, Greens, SNP, then uncertain. For reference, vote share in 2010 was: Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, BNP, SNP, GPE&W, SF, DUP , PC, SDLP, UUP, Eng Dem, Alliance, Respect, TUV, the Speaker, Rodney Connor (a losing independent unionist in NI), Lady Harmon, Christian, Scottish Green, Health Concern.

In terms of what reliable sources are talking about, London-based ones talk about Con, Lab, LibDem and UKIP most, with a fair bit of discussion about SNP and Greens. (Obviously NI-based media have a different focus.) If you just look at reliable source articles specifically talking about probable election results, they talk most about Con, Lab, LibDem and UKIP, a fair bit about SNP and Greens (probably in that order), with some mention of the DUP, and occasionally SF, PC, SDLP and UUP. If you look for concrete seat predictions though, the GPE&W is only predicted to be on 0-2 seats, below predictions for, say, DUP and SF. No-one quite knows what will happen with the SNP (could overtake the LibDems on seats) or UKIP (could overtake the DUP), but they're generally thought to be well above the Greens.

So, here's my revised suggestion. We make the infobox as big as possible to best allow compromise, so 9 parties. We have a UK-wide infobox (seems most popular position; logical; sticks with convention). We prioritise seats over votes (seems most popular; sticks with convention). We look at current seats (sort of a compromise between sticking with the 2010 results versus predicting 2015). That yields: Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. Pros: we're not changing any clear conventions around infobox usage; we're sticking to some basic principles; we include nearly all the parties that people want included and reflect the current interest and likely future success of the likes of the SNP and UKIP; we also include parties who may play a significant role in a hung Parliament, like the DUP. Cons: the big sticking point is that we do not include the Greens, who are getting a lot of attention and are fifth in the polls (and sometimes fourth). It's not going to please everyone, but that seems the best approach to me. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Or, the other compromise, and there's some logic to it, is to treat the SNP and PC as one combined block, then one can squeeze in 10 parties and add GPE&W! Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Excellent summary of the issues and it seems a very reasonable proposal based on current available sources. I'd Strongly Oppose any proposal to merge PC and SNP, they are very different parties with very different aims, albeit one main similarity. I agree the main sticking point is the absence of the E&W Green party but even if we were going by RS reports of predicted seats it's tricky to find any suggesting they will get more seats (3-4) than any of those 9 parties listed above. Most people seem to expect PC and SDLP to retain their 3 seats each while Greens are expected to gain 1 seat at most so it's hard to see them finishing better than 10th in seats won even if they do poll 5-10% nationally as some polls/experts predict.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - this infobox proposal unfairly glorifies NI parties relative to RS coverage, in addition to the obvious drawbacks of the Greens being excluded and UKIP being placed far too low down. Hmm, how about this? Infobox has: row one- Labour and Cons. Row two- Lib Dems, combined NI parties, and UKIP. Row 3: SNP, Green, PC. I'm not sure how the NI parties would be grouped together, especially considering how different they are. But it's the only reasonable way to include both the six main parties by RS coverage and NI parties due to number of MPs.Chessrat (talk) 02:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

But RS all agree that 3 of the NI Parties, SNP and PC will get more seats than the Greens so that isn't "glorifying" them but a reflection of their relative strength. I can't see any RS suggesting Greens are likely to get more than 2 seats. Equally RS suggest SNP on current polling would get more seats than Lib Dems and UKIP (see the Prof John Curtice link). So why would SNP be listed on row 3 below all the others? And how on earth can you combine NI parties in one entry? I'm afraid it's a totally unworkable suggestion that has no logic and doesn't follow RS.Andrewdpcotton (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you find any RS mentioning the NI parties in relation to the next election, but not the Greens? Note that few reliable sources determine notability solely based on current seats; most of them prefer listening to current popularity. As a rough estimate from news articles I've seen about the 2015 election, 100% mention Con, Lab and Lib Dem; 90% mention UKIP; 40% mention SNP; 30% mention Greens; 10% mention DUP; 5% mention other NI parties. Even though seat numbers are obviously most important for the Election, Misplaced Pages always follows reliable sources. To do differently (as Bondegzou proposed with his/her NI ordering), would arguably be a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Chessrat (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

So are you proposing that election infoboxes should be ordered by how many times a party is mentioned in RS rather than by how many seats or votes the RS predicts they will get?... That strikes me as rather bizarre to say the least. Surely we need to actually read RS and see how many seats they are suggesting different parties will get. For example the Peter Kellner article here has 5 scenarios https://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/12/15/tricky-politics-hung-parliaments/ Lib Dem vary from 24 to 40, SNP vary from 7 to 35, UKIP from 1 to 10. We can assume he's predicting 3 PC and 1 Green as he predicts them at 4 combined in every scenario. NI parties will always elect 18 between them so at least 2-3 of the NI parties will have 2+ MPs. If you don't think UK election infoboxes should be ordered by seats then fair enough but surely you can't be proposing we order by number of times a party is mentioned in a newspaper. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not the role of[REDACTED] to predict election outcomes WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, and neither is it appropriate to base an important element of content on predictions. We should be following reliable sources directly: ie which parties do RS tend to view as most important/significant, not what predictions do RS make. DrArsenal (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand DrArsenal and Chessrat's concern. (Indeed, I've long supported reforming the electoral system from FPTP to something more proportional, which would do away with all these problems because UKIP, the Greens &c. would be winning many more seats!) However -- and I'm repeating myself here, I fear -- every infobox I've seen for prior UK elections or elections in other countries orders parties by how many seats they've won. So, DrA, Chessrat: are you suggesting that, once the 2015 election is over, we break from that convention? That is, once the election is over, should we list the Greens above the DUP even if (as seems likely) the DUP get many more seats? I realise the election isn't over yet, but it will be in due course and what to do then helps us decide what to do now.

What I would like to see is the text of this article being expanded. The article as a whole should, I believe, reflect coverage in reliable sources, which is Misplaced Pages policy, as Chessrat points out. Reliable sources talk about the rise of multi-party politics, of UKIP and the Greens, and the implications of that. Many of those implications will be indirect: the Greens may not win many seats, but voters choosing the Greens can still be significant in terms of reduced LD or Lab votes. The article should talk about that (as the opinion polling article already notes the rise of UKIP and the Greens). An article that better covers these issues will be better and balance whatever the infobox says. I think we'd have a better article overall if we all spent more time on the text and less worrying about the tokenism of infobox inclusion!

That said, we're still left with what to do with the infobox. DrA reminds us of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL: that's why most infoboxes for future elections are based on what happened last time. We can do that, but I don't think the result would be any more to DrA and Chessrat's liking. We could not have an infobox at all, or something that lists no parties.

Ultimately, what is the infobox for? The standard format works for elections that have been held (although we may still have the same arguments afterwards). It is less successful for forthcoming elections because you either fall back on what happened last time, or you're into crystal ball territory. Maybe we need a whole new design of infobox for upcoming elections that can list parties that reliable sources consider important without any implication that importance equates to seats likely to be won? Or, we can say that the infobox is not intended as a summary of what parties are important (the article text can cover that): rather, it is something that specifically focuses on the result (i.e. seats won). That would be my preference.

Sorry for another long comment! Bondegezou (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

FYI, I've put requests at Template_talk:Infobox_election and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums for additional opinions. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Bondegezou for putting in the requests for additional opinions.

I had come to the conclusion that we needed outside help in resolving this, too.

I think there may be a case for the infobox to not work purely on seats won after the election, but I would say that is very largely a different question from the one at hand now, because we don't know how many seats will be won after the election, and reliable sources have a good level of disagreement and fuzzyness - eg we don't know which will be 1st or 2nd party in terms of seats, or 2nd/3rd, or 4th/5th etc.

As for your call for additional text. You may recall that I have been working on additional text to describe the major shifts in opinion polling through the parliament. I didn't imagine I wouldn't have it completed by the end of the year, but it seems worth waiting now to see if Anthony Wells at UKPollingReport produces a summary of the year again. When it does arrive, I hope you will constructively edit it.

I agree it is important to remember that "Ultimately, what is the infobox for? The standard format works for elections that have been held": but meanwhile we have a little over four months trying to cope with it in a situation where the problems are magnified and intensified. DrArsenal (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, also Bondegezou for reminding me to look at talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums - at #Infoboxes, candidates there is an interesting and highly relevant comment, with links to various relevant wikipolicies DrArsenal (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

2015 United Kingdom general election

← 2010 7 May 2015
← outgoing members
All 650 seats to the House of Commons 326 seats are needed for a majority.
Leader David Cameron Ed Miliband Nick Clegg Party Conservative Labour Liberal Democrats Leader since 6 December 2005 25 September 2010 18 December 2007 Leader's seat Witney Doncaster North Sheffield Hallam Last election 306 seats, 36.1% 258 seats, 29% 57 seats, 23% Seats needed 20 68 269   Leader Nigel Farage Nicola Sturgeon Natalie Bennett Party UKIP SNP Green Leader since 5 November 2010 14 November 2014 3 September 2012 Last election 0 seats, 3% 6 seats, 2% 1 seats, 1%   Leader Leanne Wood Party Plaid Cymru Leader since 15 March 2012 Last election 3 seats

Northern Ireland parties

Leader Peter Robinson Gerry Adams Alasdair McDonnell Party DUP Sinn Féin SDLP Leader since 31 May 2008 13 November 1983 5 November 2011 Leader's seat Belfast South Last election 8 seats 5 seats 3 seats

Incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative

How about this? Uses a bit of fudging with two infoboxes. Pre-election, the parties would retain this order as per RS coverage. Post-election, the parties in each infobox would be ordered in terms of number of seats. See, having NI always be below rest of UK prevents many of the problems that would occur otherwise. Chessrat (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks DrA for the link. Thanks Chessrat for the suggestion: the model of having 2 infoboxes immediately next to each other is an interesting one. Bondegezou (talk) 09:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Another cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30587686 Bondegezou (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

And another cite (GB only): http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/poll-of-the-pollsters-labour-by-a-whisker-the-polling-firms-place-their-bets-for-may-9955994.html Bondegezou (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I also note that Israeli legislative election, 2015 has chosen to not list any parties in their infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Bondegezou for those two. Interesting, and I would say significant, that none of the pollsters even mentioned the NornIrn MPs having a possible role in making or breaking coalitions, given how none of them are convinced we are in overall majority territory. DrArsenal (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

True, but one should note they are pollsters polling GB. They don't poll NI, so why would they be getting into predicting NI results? Bondegezou (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: note Talk:Israeli_legislative_election,_2015#infobox! Bondegezou (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Another cite: "There are six parties involved" discussing the election and referring to Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, SNP and Green, Newsnight, BBC2, 5 Jan 2015. I feel that sort of coverage needs to be addressed in the article, whether or not in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

.., although subsequent discussion on the programme also raised the possibility of the DUP's involvement in a coalition. Bondegezou (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

... And then the first forecast of the Newsnight index is 90% probability of a hung parliament, with Lab 286, Con 280 (but highest vote share), SNP 33, LD 26, DUP 8, UKIP 3, SDLP 3, PC 2, Greens 1, other 8. That's what they put on screen. Bondegezou (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

This is the website with the details for the forecast Newsnight are using. Bondegezou (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

As he/she is the one clear-cut advocate of "One UK, one infobox." who hasn't responded to Chessrat's suggestion, I left a message on the talk page of DoktorB: no response. I suggest it might be time for a bold change of the infobox, as Chessrat suggested, fully expecting it will provoke people to come to want to debate it (and may well result in a revertion). DrArsenal (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. If Bondegezou doesn't object, we should BOLDly implement my ten-party suggested infobox, as it seems to be the only suggestion so far that we all accept. Chessrat (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:BOLD does not really apply, people. See WP:BRD: we are clearly in the 'discuss' phase and I fear such a bold change may be overly provocative. I realise things have dragged on for ages now and can see why people would be frustrated. I -- and perhaps this is a false optimism! -- do feel we are inching towards a solution. It seems to me that we are closer to agreement about what to do after the election, so I wondered if we could nail that down, while leaving the problem of what to do before the election for later? Do we at least all agree that the post-election infobox should be ordered by seats won?

If people here feel continuing the discussion as we have been doing is not enough, then the next step in Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution process is not another bold edit but an WP:RFC.

In case it is useful for further discussion or an RfC, I thought I would enumerate our options. These are, it seems to me:

1. Status quo: infobox with Con, Lab & LD
2. No parties listed: as per Israeli legislative election, 2015, we have an infobox, but leave it blank until the election results
3. Maxi-infobox based on current seats: so, Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. This is my suggestion from above: parties listed by current seats in the Commons (ties split by 2010 vote share)
4. Combi 2-part infobox for GB and NI: we use Chessrat's hack with two infoboxes made to look kind of like one infobox to include more GB parties (including the Greens) and listing NI parties separately. This would require some further discussion of which parties to include and in what order. (I'd suggest sticking with ordering by current seats (ties split by 2010) to give Con, Lab, LibDem, SNP, PC, SDLP, UKIP, Green Party of England & Wales in the GB box and then DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, UUP in the NI box. There may be debate about whether to include Respect and BNP in the former, whether to drop UUP in the latter, and whether to add TUV or others in the latter.)

I'm uncertain myself what the best option is. Right now, I'm leaning towards (4) with caveats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

PS: I've been thinking of some text for the article content as a balance to these issues. I'll try to get to that in the next couple of days. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Great! At last we're all in tentative agreement as to the design. Good point, it is still a bit early for the BOLD stage of the process. You must have mistakenly suggested SDLP for the GB infobox as I don't think it operates outside NI? And I would argue that the GB infobox should be, for now, ordered by RS coverage. That would change to number of seats after the election, though. So we'd have Con, Lab, LibDem, UKIP, SNP, Green Party of England & Wales, PC, (Respect? BNP?) in the GB box and then DUP, SF, SDLP, Alliance, (UUP? TUV?) in the NI box. Change this order to number of seats after election results are released. If we can agree on this, which we seem to be getting close to, then at last we can finish the infobox and get onto the article content. Chessrat (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, SDLP in the GB list was a mistake.

I think ordering by RS coverage is a difficult concept. It is hard to measure objectively: it is unclear what RS coverage is relevant to what infobox; there is no way of scanning all the RS coverage; and how do you weight different RS material? Ordering by the previous result (or current standing) is the norm for infoboxes for a good reason, I suspect, and I am reluctant to abandon that position. For me, the RS coverage argument is a good reason to try to include parties in the infobox, but I do not currently see it as workable as a way of ordering them.

After the election, would you still want to have the GB/NI split?

Finally, I hope we can improve article content before we finish the infobox! Indeed, I hope improved article content will reduce worries about the emphasis produced by the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Delete the infobox from the article. It is not serving any purpose other than to make a mess, and any idea of having a giant infobox is absurd and bad for page design. Let the prose do the talking. After the election, add the usual infobox. This hairsplitting over what to include is WP:CRYSTAL. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:RGloucester it's good to get another view, but it seems unlikely to me that there would be consensus to delete the infobox altogether (admittedly, certainly one, and perhaps two of Bondegezou's 'options' would be worse than deletion from my perspective).

However, I think there is consensus that the best thing to do is to increase and improve the prose. Bondegezou and I have both added chunks of prose in the last week, and below there are two suggestions of topics where prose coverage could very usefully be added: perhaps you could suggest some text towards one of them? DrArsenal (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:RGloucester, some more info would be welcome. Infoboxes are routine in all sorts of election pages on[REDACTED] - are you saying they should be gone from them all for prospective elections, or just that the particular circumstances of this one means it is better being got rid of? Would the much-reduced Israeli legislative election, 2015-style infobox still meet with your objection? DrArsenal (talk) 20:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't care about other articles. I care about this article. A giant infobox does not serve the interests of the reader, and the hand-wringing over this matter has wasted much more time than it is worth. The pragmatic solution is to get rid of it, and put it in once the election occurs. That's the only reasonable solution. RGloucester — ☎ 21:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to respond to the 15:22 from Bondegezou. I did write a reply earlier, but it disappeared between an edit conflict and injudicious use of a 'back' button. ... Anyway, no Bondegezou, I don't agree to a simple order post-election info-box by seats won, since on this electoral system, it is possible for a party to get 25% of the vote and get no MPs, despite having the most votes nationwide, while (say) two other parties get the bulk of the seats with 23% each (less evenly distributed), and others get substantial numbers of seats with <5%.

There is nothing about the wp:brd cycle that means we have to go to dispute resolution now. However, given User:RGloucester's opposition, perhaps it is worthwhile.

As for the options -1) I don't think this is sustainable until polling day, to say the least it's hard to support with reliable sources.

2)If that is the best consensus that can be achieved, so be it.

3)As suggested, it does not reflect reliable sources at all. This is the clear-cut "no info box would be better" for me.

4)I think it's the best option, but with RGloucester opposing now, we have a problem.

Thank heavens for the text Bondegezou added to the article. DrArsenal (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DrArsenal, to pick up on one point you make, I'm well aware that vote share and seats won can be very divergent under the UK electoral system. However, the system is what it is and an election is about winning seats. If a party gets 25% of the vote and no seats, then the most important 'take home' from that, the summary that should go in the infobox, is that they won no seats. I think the article text should explain that seats won is not directly proportional to votes won and, in your hypothetical case, what happened to that party should be explained and discussed in the text. But it's not the job of a Misplaced Pages article infobox to fix the UK electoral system: we reflect what is. I am, thus, comfortable with sticking with what all infoboxes I've seen for FPTP elections do, that is that ordering is by seats won, not votes won.

Do we need to go to an RfC now? I don't know. I suspect we will need a process like that if we're to come to any conclusion. Bondegezou (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I note that Greek legislative election, 2015 has an infobox ordered by seats (or votes - it's basically the same) won last time, not by current seats, not by current polling and not by RS coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I wasn't doubting you would understand that: I was simply giving my reason for saying I can't commit before an election to the principles you suggest for determining what it contains after the election.

Anyway: RGloucester's intervention has persuaded me we should go for RfC now. DrArsenal (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop the presses - Ofcom consultation out

We've discussed before that the most obvious reliable source of who is a major party and who is not is Ofcom. They published their consultation today, which has received subsequent press attention. This, as I understand it, is the beginning of the process. Ofcom here put forward their initial view, but there is then a consultation before a final statement due March 2015.

Do go read the full details at the link provided, but in short, Ofcom say there is no strong argument to remove any parties from their current list of major parties, i.e. Con, Lab, LibDem in GB, SNP in Scotland, Plaid in Wales, and in Northern Ireland, Alliance, DUP, SF, SDLP and UUP. They have then considered whether to add to this list. They conclude that UKIP should be added to the list for England and Wales, but they conclude not to add TUV for NI and not to add the Greens (for England & Wales, or the Scottish Greens). They go on to give reasons for all this.

I've always argued that we should follow Ofcom in this. Obviously, their final statement may differ from this initial view. But as it stands, it seems to me a key reliable source say the Greens are not a major party. So, now I feel like going back to my earlier suggestion for a 9-party infobox (based on current seats, ties split by 2010 vote share) of Con, Lab, LibDem, DUP, SNP, SF, PC, SDLP, UKIP. That then covers every party Ofcom considers major in some part of the UK, except the UUP, who have been without an MP since before the 2010 election. Bondegezou (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter-stop-press: Cameron stated that he will not partake in televised debates, (usually considered as showing major parties) unless the Greens are included. Should we take Ofcom's word over the PM?

I think the only thing these latest revelations show is just how up-in-the-air the whole thing is. If Cameron's threat is acknowledged and the Greens are thus included, it would make Misplaced Pages's stance of not including the fifth-largest party look very biased, despite following Ofcom's guidance.

How would everyone think about using the current infobox until the debates' lineup is finalized, before changing the infobox to only include the parties of the debates?

Remember that being a major party in NI does not necessarily imply being a major party in the UK as a whole. Chessrat (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be literal, yes, Misplaced Pages rules would suggest that an Ofcom report is a more reliable source than something the PM says. The PM is clearly not an unbiased participant here, and several RS reports have discussed reasons why Cameron may be saying this for his own reasons (as an excuse to scupper the debates, because he feels the Greens would take more support from his opponents).

However, yes, I take your point that who gets included in the debates, if they happen, would be another key piece of evidence. (If we went with precisely who was in the debates, then that would almost certainly mean no SNP, currently the 5th largest party in the Commons and expected by many commentators to be 4th or 3rd after the election. There were, of course, also additional debates in Scotland, Wales and NI last time, so do you consider those?)

I don't think I'm happy with only going with who's in the debates (if they happen), but if the Greens, or whoever, are in the debates, then, yes, that would be a strong reason to include them in the infobox in my view too. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another cite: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/09/leaders-five-main-uk-parties-invited-digital-debate-general-election-30-march

Fair enough. Misplaced Pages may follow Ofcom as an RS. But Ofcom did not say which parties were notable in the UK as a whole! They only included each region. Can you find any source that suggests, for example, that the SDLP will be relevant in the UK general election?

If not, it seems undue emphasis will be placed on the NI parties.

I think this is the major problem we keep returning to. It's an election across the whole UK, but most sources only focus on what will be happening in each individual region. I can't see any obvious way around this problem.

As far as I can see, we have eight options for the infobox, proposed by various users. (pre-election, at least)

A) No infobox

B) Con/Lab

C) Con/Lab/Lib

D) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip

E) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP

F) Con/Lab/Lib/DUP/SNP/SF/PC/SDLP/Ukip

G) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP/PC///DUP/SF/SDLP

H) Con/Lab/Lib/Ukip/Green/SNP/PC/Respect/BNP///DUP/SF/SDLP/Alliance/UUP/TUV

Chessrat (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

FDGHACEB! Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

EGDCHBAF are my prefences... Chessrat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The BBC has drawn up their own guidance for election coverage. The draft for consultation (so same deal as Ofcom) is here and it pretty much says the same as Ofcom, i.e. The Greens and, in NI, TUV are not major parties. So both the BBC and Ofcom documents are your for comments and we don't know what will happen with the debates, but it seems to me, at present, that 2 key reliable sources say the same thing, and I also think the best way to translate that into an infobox is F above. But I entirely recognise there are merits in other suggestions. Bondegezou (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

EBAGHCDF would be my view.DrArsenal (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

FGHBAECD would be mine. Not sure this guidance really helps us resolve the issue at all to be honest. Andrewdpcotton (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

another move of the goalposts - http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2015-01-22/bbc-and-itv-bid-for-seven-way-leaders-debates DrArsenal (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And the DUP have responded saying they should be included. I don't think speculation and unagreed suggestions for the debates should be given much weight. Ofcom and the BBC both have current guidance listing major parties. Those are obvious reliable sources to settle the matter here. Bondegezou (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to other articles

The United States presidential election, 1996 includes a party that received a significant proportion of the popular vote (8%) despite getting no seats. This supports inclusion of popular parties that don't get many seats, like UKIP and Green. Looking at other language[REDACTED] articles for the UK election 2015, of the ones with infoboxes: About half of them have Con, Lab, LD, UKIP. Most of the remainder have Con, Lab, LD. Welsh has Con, Lab, LD, UKIP, SNP, PC. Given that Ofcom states that Con, Lab, LD and UKIP are major parties in England, would anyone support a four-party infobox for now? (Con-Lab-LD-Ukip) As an interim measure? Chessrat (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Chessrat. US presidential elections are rather different elections, of course. Perot's 8.4% is also higher than the Greens did at the last general election, at any subsequent national election and in nearly every poll, although UKIP has done better on several of those counts. To clarify, my concern is less whether the Greens have won enough seats and more that it seems inappropriate to me to include parties (e.g. Greens, UKIP) while excluding other parties who have won more seats previously and are likely to win more seats in due course. That's the stumbling block for me, and that's something I've never seen done (on the English-language Misplaced Pages) for any UK, US, Canadian or Indian elections (as the main examples of countries using FPTP) or, indeed, for any other election article. And that's why a 4-party selection of Con/Lab/LD/UKIP doesn't appeal to me, although I will bow to consensus should one emerge.

Interesting to see what other language Misplaced Pages articles do. I hadn't thought to look at those! Perhaps not surprising that the Welsh language one should include SNP and PC. Interesting that none others include SNP or PC and that none of them include the Greens or the Northern Irish parties. Bondegezou (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Manifesto section

I like it. Let's include it. I don't see as much challenge as with the infobox over who to include. Bondegezou (talk) 21:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right about it not being so much of a challenge, BUT the edits by User:Gyste didn't result in anything even remotely tidy. DrArsenal (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I like the concept, but yeah, it needs to be kept tidy. I wonder if we just need to record the title of the manifesto and cross-media coverage, rather than getting to much into replicating the bullet points of each party's policies. doktorb _words 05:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I see at BBC news there is a manifesto watch, that might be a useful source, but I can see problems moving it from what is there to what can be on this page while maintaining a neutral point of view and without plagiarism. DrArsenal (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible coalitions

Would it be appropriate to describe what parties say about possible coalitions? Such is usual in election articles for countries more used to multiparty politics. Here's a relevant cite: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30672904 Bondegezou (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) Another cite: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/02/tory-labour-unity-7-may-national-government-constitutional-crisis Chessrat (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC) More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11325940/Ed-Miliband-hints-he-may-back-replacing-Trident-with-cheaper-system.html, http://opinion.publicfinance.co.uk/2014/04/the-election-unknowns/ Lib–Lab pact#Possible coalition after 2015 general election http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30396237 http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/dec/16/snp-plaid-cymru-greens-join-forces-austerity-election http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11322674/A-rainbow-Coalition-after-May-would-lead-to-a-second-general-election-this-year-says-Tory-minister.html http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/29/2015-general-election-multi-party-coalition-ukip-snp

DrArsenal (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all those cites. Bondegezou (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Political parties

I have massively and boldly expanded the political parties section to describe the major players at the election according to reliable sources. I felt this was needed following the above infobox discussion: whatever we do with the infobox, the article as a whole should reflect reliable source coverage and I've built on that discussion to inform the text I've added. I hope others feel the text is appropriate and that it provides a balance to whatever we end up doing with the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 19:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Predictions section

Isn't it time to add a section with predictions of *seats*? There are at least three or four websites doing seat predictions, and these of course have the potential to be much more useful than opinion polls, because of the electoral system we have here. KarlFrei (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about that myself, so, yes, agreed it would be a good idea. I wasn't certain whether such a section would be better here or as part of Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election or even as its own article. I think such a section should list those predictions that pass WP:RS criteria, so that would include ElectionForecast.co.uk being used by Newsnight. There's also the New Statesman one here. Some predictions, like ElectionForecast.co.uk, give ranges, not just a single prediction: how do we describe that? A section should also discuss some of the issues in prediction (why it's difficult, should you use uniform national swing (UNS), the need to model Scotland separately, what to do with Northern Ireland, do you use constituency-level polling). Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Me again. I note the New Statesman site here helpfully lists other predictors: they give their model, Election Forecast, the well-known Electoral Calculus, betting odds at Ladbrokes and Elections Etc. (which I've not heard of before). I note some of these seem to be doing automatic daily updates now: it will be a lot of work to copy those over here. Is there some sensible way to note what they're saying without doing that? Bondegezou (talk) 11:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure (sorry for my late reply). I still think it is nice to have a table here, in a central location for people looking for information about this upcoming election. I suppose we don't need to copy over every single daily update - maybe update it once per week? That said, I do think it could be interesting to track how these predictions change over time, very much like the graph of opinion polls that we have. But of course it would be a lot of work to create it and keep it up to date, and it is going to be hard to source...KarlFrei (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW, May2015's table of other predictions is not terribly up-to-date, so I guess it is worthwhile to keep Misplaced Pages's table as current as possible.KarlFrei (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

In Electoral Calculus, NAT is, I think, Nationalist, i.e. SNP+PC combined, and MIN is minority parties, I think... but I can't get the site to load at the moment to check. Bondegezou (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I should point out that Electoral Calculus is a "Nowcast", not a Forecast. RodCrosby (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I really can't see how anything based on betting, like sporting index, can be justified for inclusion - it is not a reliable source, it is inherently biassed (and open to intentional bias) because ability to take part in betting markets is greater for those with more money. An aggregation of such bets is just an aggregation of a biassed section of the electorate - we don't report opinion polls that are similarly biassed. DrArsenal (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting point, I never thought of that. Do rich people bet more? I guess individual rich people might bet larger amounts, but I would be interested to see a graph of income/wealth vs how many people do betting. Anyway, I like to have something in there which represents the wisdom of the crowd, but of course I cannot guarantee that people who bet form an accurate representation of the population. Is that necessary, though? They all have the same goal: to make money... KarlFrei (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think overall what rich people do is often called 'investing' or 'speculating' whereas what poor people do is almost always called 'betting', but rich people play for higher stakes in markets that are less loaded in favour of the 'house'. These higher stakes are the essence of why political betting is biassed (especially when combined with being niche markets, so the 'speculation' of a small number can move the market. I recall a story told by Clement Freud, of how in the bye-election that he won to first become an MP, one of the papers ran a story that the 'wise money' was on Freud, whereas Freud knew it was in fact just his own money at that stage). DrArsenal (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And Freud did win, so the betting proved accurate. Times have changed since then in terms of the amounts bet and the liquidity of the markets. Reliable sources discuss the value of political betting as a predictive tool, including some arguments why it may be better than other approaches. We follow reliable sources. So I see an argument for including such data. Whether that's the right markets to be quoting, whether we should be doing so in this section... those are harder questions. May2015.com quotes betting odds, but uses Ladbrokes instead. Bondegezou (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rigged boundaries

Shouldn't the article mention that Labour is guaranteed to win the election because the boundaries are so massively rigged in its favour? The boundaries require the Conservatives to get 41% just to get a hung parliament, whereas Labour can win a majority on just 29% of the vote. (Morboso (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC))

Any content should be supported by reliable sources. There are reliable sources discussing how the electoral system works and how Labour currently tend to get more seats for the same vote share. That would be useful content to add, although it is already eluded to in the seat predictions section. However, any content must be accurate and represent a neutral point of view. Labour are not guaranteed to win the election. Much, possibly most, of this effect is not a result of boundaries but due to differential turnout. The boundaries are not "rigged": this is a result of demographic changes that happen to benefit Labour, but the boundaries were drawn up in a fair manner. I also note that the effect is expected to be reduced by the SNP's rise in Scotland and an increasing Green vote: your suggested percentages are doubtful. Bondegezou (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The boundaries are rigged in Labour's favour, and have been since the late 1990s. Labour is guaranteed to win the General Election because of the rigged boundaries and the demographic changes caused by mass immigration. Labour constituencies need far fewer votes to elect an MP than Conservative constituencies. (Morboso (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

Some possible citations include: "Labour's electoral advantage isn't mainly due to the boundaries", New Statesman, UK Polling Report: "Electoral bias", "Commons boundaries 'favour Labour seats’", The Telegraph, Extract from "Explaining Cameron’s Coalition" by Robert Worcester, Roger Mortimore, Paul Baines and Mark Gill. Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The unfair boundaries must be mentioned in the article. It is why Labour ended up with a huge majority of 66 on just 35% of the vote in 2005, whereas the Conservatives did not win a majority on 37% of the vote at the last election. Thatcher could not have won a General Election on today's boundaries. (Morboso (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC))

Morboso, there has been a tendency in the past for Labour to be able to get a majority with a lower share of the vote than the Tories, but I agree with Bondegezou on this occasion. The evidence really doesn't support it being unfair boundaries, so much as demographic changes and differential turnout. If the article were to mention the possibility of unfair boundaries, it would have to follow the balance of opinion in reliable sources and show that there is less evidence for the boundaries being unfair than for the effect having other causes. (and neither I nor Bondegezou are Labour Party supporters, by the way). DrArsenal (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted against making the boundaries fair in 2013. I've no idea why the election is even going ahead when only one party can win on the current boundaries. (Morboso (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC))

Thank you for your enthusiasm, but this Talk page is for discussion of article content, not for a general discussion of the election. If you would like to suggest some reliable sources to support an edit along the lines you've suggested, that would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The article needs to mention that, due to the unfair boundaries, only Labour can win this election. If the boundaries had been equalized then the Conservatives would have a chance. (Morboso (talk) 15:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC))

@Morboso:I appreciate this debate is a few days old and this isn't really the place for it, but I'd suggest you wait and see what the results throw up in May - the only area where there is really a pro-Labour bias in the boundaries now is Wales (Wales has about 8 more seats than it would have if its seats were the same size as England's - and the likelihood is these 8 probably break down as 5/6 for Labour and 2/3 for others - Plaid Cymru, the LibDems and Tories actually have many of the very smallest seats in Wales). As for the boundaries in England, the average electorate of a Labour seat may be slightly lower (mainly because the data is 14 years out of date), but there are over-sized and under-sized seats represented by all parties (e.g. Holborn & St Pancras/NE Cambs - large, and Islington South/Wirral West - small). There are two main reasons for Labour bias in the last couple of elections - 1. Turnout - Labour seats tend to have much lower turnouts so contribute fewer votes to the UK-wide total; and 2. Incumbency - Labour benefitted from having more incumbents in place at the last 2 elections. The second issue will not be as big a factor this time round, as the Conservatives have a lot more incumbents (and many of them are first-time defenders who tend to get the best results). It is quite likely that if the vote shares of Lab and Con this year are close, their seat tallies will be too, and much of the supposed pro-Labour bias will vanish.Frinton100 (talk) 20:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Most of the Labour seats in the north of England are much smaller than Conservative seats in the south. It takes almost twice as many voters to elect a Conservative MP as it does to elect a Labour MP. (CWLilius (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC))

More than a slight exaggeration there CWLilius. As has been pointed out above, turnout is lower in Labour seats than Conservative ones. Looking at the number of electors, which the boundary commissioners are legally obliged to do there is not actually much difference. Also it takes many many more voters to elect candidates outside the main two parties, but that then is the nature of 1st past the post. - Galloglass 14:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The electoral geography does not arise because the boundaries are "rigged". It arises because potential Labour voters tend, because of the historical development of the country's economy, to be more heavily concentrated in certain areas - especially the larger cities - than potential Conservative voters, who tend to be more widely dispersed across the whole country. Clearly, however, that does not mean that "only one party can win". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The boundaries have been rigged in Labour's favour for the past 15 years. Only Labour could win the last election, even though Cameron got two million more votes than Blair managed in 2005. As the boundary reforms were voted down by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, only Labour can win this year's election. Until the extreme bias in the boundaries is removed, only Labour can win a General Election. (CWLilius (talk) 15:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC))

If you check your facts CWLilius the proposed boundary changes would have made very little difference indeed at the last election. Indeed Cameron received 47% of the seats at the 2010 election despite only getting 36% of votes cast. Rather a good return for just over one third of votes cast..... - Galloglass 15:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Btw CWLilius would you be familiar with GeorgeJefferys by any chance? - Galloglass 15:42, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for generally discussing the election or electoral system? If you have edits to suggest, supported by reliable source citations, that would be useful. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Happy to have you Archive the discussion Bondegezou. The whole section is only being generated by GeorgeJefferys Sockpuppet accounts. - Galloglass 15:50, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Labour and the Liberal Democrats voted to maintain a rigged system which ensures the Conservatives can never win a majority. Labour got 35% of the vote in 2005 and a majority of 66, the Conservatives got 37% of the vote in 2010 and were 20 seats short of a majority. Without the unfair boundaries the Conservatives would have won a majority at the last election. (CWLilius (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC))

The Tories would still have been short of a majority on the proposed boundary changes that were rejected (UKPollingReport calculation was 299 Con seats out of 600 if I recall correctly). Labour won a majority on a low vote share in 2005 because of a a stronger "ground campaign" in marginals and a divided opposition in many individual constituencies - the same reasons Thatcher made gains in 1983 despite a slight drop in vote share. If the Tories were to poll 42% on the current boundaries, they would win a large overall majority, just as they did in 1983 and 1987. And in fact, most of the seat projections (May2015, ElectionsEtc, and others) suggest that the number of Labour and Conservative seats will be similar after May, despite Labour holding a small lead in vote share - now the Conservatives will benefit most from incumbency, the "bias" will shift in their direction. Frinton100 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

1. ^ "Peers end deadlock over fixed term parliaments". BBC News Online. 14 September 2011.
2. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/08/lord-mandelson-ed-miliband-labout-core-vote_n_6291212.html
3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30726499

• Unassessed Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Top-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles