Talk:2017 United Kingdom general election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Scottish Independence

If Scotland does vote in favour of leaving the UK in 2014, it wouldn't cease to be part of the UK suddenly. The position of MPs elected in Scotland wouldn't be 'unclear' because Scotland would remain part of the UK until the British government starts proceedings for an exit of Scotland from the UK. This would take a few years therefore the position of the MPs wouldn't be unclear at all, as they would still have to represent their constituents in Westminster as Scotland wouldn't yet be an independent state. Also, the source quoted was from the comment section of the Guardian. Anything from the comment section of any newspaper is opinion rather than fact, therefore such a source is inappropriate unless individuals are being quoted for their opinions.

What do other people think about the inclusion of a paragraph on the position of MPs elected in Scotland? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.199.152 (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is surely significant that 53 MPs elected in 2015 could cease to be MPs in 2016 which is the intended date for Scottish independence should the Scots vote yes in 2014. If a Labour government were elected in 2015, it may lose its majority in 2016 when it loses its scottish MPs. This must be worthy of comment in this article. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand you reasoning and accept that such an occasion would be noteworthy but the position of elected MPs wouldn't be 'unclear' as previously stated. They would simply represent their constituents until 2016 or whenever else Scotland ceases to be a constituent country of the UK. I personally think a point should be added if Scotland does vote 'Yes' to state that the MPs elected wouldn't serve a full term. What do you think? 86.149.199.152 (talk) 15:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a valid citation supporting the current text. The best way to move forward is not to edit war, but to find additional citations pertinent to the matter, then to consider them here. Then agree any changes as appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of making a note of it somehow, it is more then note worthy but we are potentially delving into hypotheticals here, so we do need to be careful! Come what may it is clear that there will be MPs elected to Westminster by the Scottish people. What is unclear is what their status will be i.e. full members, interim members or even merely observers. I would tread carefully with the hypothetical of saying how this will affect government formation/collapse because this would be a hypothetical of a hypothetical! We can't say that if Scotland goes independent and Labour form a Government in 2015 that they could loose their majority in 2016, that's far too specific. We have got to avoid forecasting the election result, whilst at the same time not second guessing the Scottish people. Therefore I would favour simply saying "If Scotland were to become independent, it's 59(53) MPs would be abolished which could in turn affect the UK Governments majority. Depending on the party configuration, the majority could either decrease or increase and indeed remove or create the need for a coalition or early election." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The way to successfully avoid getting into WP:OR territory is to go by what reliable sources tell us. We don't need to make the decisions about hypotheticals -- we reflect what reliables sources are saying about hypotheticals. Bondegezou (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, whatever happens at the Scottish Referendum might have implications for the parliament formed in 2015, but it will not directly affect the conduct of the 2015 election. This article is about the election, so whatever putative statement might be made about a possible yes vote in Scotland should have a very low profile in the article: it has undue prominence in the current lead. There is nothing unclear about the status of Scottish MPs immediately on their election in 2015. Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You have asserted a number of times that there is nothing unclear about the status of Scottish MPs (should Scotland have voted for independence). However, we have a citation that says there is. A citation is always going to trump the personal view of an editor. This is basic Wikipedia policy. Find some citations to support your alternate view and we can consider it.

Should it be in the lede, maybe, maybe not. I'll take another look at the structure of the article. Bondegezou (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that at all: I said that there is no procedural change to the 2015 election. This article is about that election, and the blog/opinion piece (and therefore highly questionable as an encyclopaedic source) cited specifically states that the election will take place in Scotland. That journalist raised speculation as to whether Scottish MPs would be able to vote on English matters: there is nothing more encyclopaedic than one opinion here: that opinion is very weak evidence that there really is unclarity, and unless you can provide evidence that there are serious constitutional queries being formally raised, the inclusion is scarcely justified. Please do not be so arrogant and patronising as to present this as "the personal view of an editor": you need serious sourcing to justify inclusion, and the one substandard citation does not state anything that impinges directly on the subject matter of the article. Kevin McE (talk) 18:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

TV Debates

We have not said anything about the TV debates and there has been a lot of high level talk about them. There is the possibility that they could even take place in 2014 as asserted by the PM and Menzies Campbell. Many well renowned commentators are even talking about the attendance of Nigel Farage. I think we need to talk about how this part should be worded, we don't want it to be all conjecture, fortunately there are a lot of sources out there! Furthermore there is a question as to whether there will be a debate for the European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom), whether that will be done at a pan-EU level or at the national level or both is currently unclear, non-the-less there are sources out there to make this note worthy on both pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I have added a section on the TV debates which uses a variety of sources, some of the sources I got from Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom). There is no implication either way as to whether there will be a TV Debate for the 2014 EP elections, this is the right page for those sources as those sources refer to this article. Thankyou sheffno1gunner (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed a few unsourced claims -- please do not add them back in without providing a source. Also, please do not make fake accusations of edit warring. Thank you. – Richard BB 18:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying is unsourced, the sources are provided, other editors such as Bondegouza has also read them, may I suggest you actually read them, everything I have written is sourced! The content has been reviewed and rewritten to improve the wording, other then that other editors seem happy to read the sources and accept what they say! sheffno1gunner (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think I can see the issue here. It seems that you malformed the references when you added them, meaning that the links led to 404 pages. After manually altering the links, I can see that they work. I'll attempt to fix them in the article now. – Richard BB 19:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Remember that there's a cite tool at the top of your editing page that can do all of this for you, thereby avoiding such confusion. – Richard BB 19:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry if I came across a tad aggressive. I can see that this was an honest mistake. Thank you for fixing my links. sheffno1gunner (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Protected Article - Errr Why?

I notice that protection has been added to this article without a single comment having been made on this talk page. That is frankly unacceptable behavior on the part of those editors concerned! The editors concerned cited their reasons as edit warring! Really? It seems to me that it was accepted that UKIP did not have their 2 swing seats included as they were by election results. I accepted this quite clearly in one of my comments whereby I simply removed an unnecessary space in the article in order for my edit to be valid so that my comments would appear in the edit list! I stand by those comments! The fact that this article has been protected without proper justification is something I find deeply concerning! It seems a certain group of editors of a certain political persuasion are determined to prevent further additions to this story and wish to reword text that has already been agreed! doktorbuk is a self confessed Liberal Democrat, other editors have expressed on their user pages that they are interested in articles concerning the Liberal Democrats, it strikes me as an odd coincidence really! When doktorbuk uses very clear phrases such as "To defeat the UKIP IPs..." and "But we need to close the "UKIP loophole"" one can be forgiven for thinting that there is something not right here! Has anyone anything to say for themselves? I've done nothing wrong, I accepted that those swing seats were being removed before the protection went on, I merely used a false edit (which actually tidied the article a bit) to add comments! There is some very odd and clearly partial behavior by some editors on here! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Back in November, during the most recent time of UKIP failing to win anything, we had a "spike" in IP addresses trying to add the party to each and every paragraph they possibly could, in an attempt to use Wikipedia as some kind of 'proof' of status. This all died down by December. I think we're just going through the same thing again - one flash in the pan "spike", followed by IP addresses playing silly devils. Whatever we are doing, it's completely acceptable in the context of long term editors looking after the long term future of this article, against the WP:RECENTISM of random passers by. I've nothing else to say. doktorb _words^deeds 15:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsatifactory response. This was a preemptive act, there was no edit war. It has been 6 days since Eastleigh and there has not been an edit war since. I was actually involved in the discussions in November 2012 after Rotherham and in the end the decision was accepted by all objectors (including myself) once a thorough discussion had taken place. That discussion is clearly in an earlier section of this talk page and could be used to diffuse any potential situation before even considering an edit lock. But no because you are lord and master of this page you took a different decision. Since we are 6days after said by election, you have no evidence to suggest a repeat of November would take place. Your response seems to be filled with bitterness and denial, I hope your at least convincing yourself that this is a flash in the pan because no one else is, especially the leading commentators and pollsters! However that's by the by! What matters is here is your conduct which has been improper! Please unlock this page! I do not intend to do things like add anything to info boxes or add paragraphs left right and center as you suggest! Your partiality is clearly affecting your judgement!213.120.148.60 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Edits clearly not in keeping with basic Wikipedia policy, like Assume good faith, should be discouraged. I thus support the use of semi-protection here. IP editor, I suggest you consider how better to put your input across rather than complaining here. If you have a complaint about other editors, take it to the appropriate place, e.g. WP:ANI. And, of course, you can always just create an account. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Bondegezou, I shall follow your advice and escalate the matter.81.149.185.174 (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I hope you have taken note of the responses there. Secondly, you have misunderstood my intentions: I do not agree with your views on this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 08:13, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I have very little interest in taking this further, other than to correct errant or malicious edits. With policies on my side - WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, etc - and with consensus on my side - the project's regular editors and our agreements - I know that anonymous IP editors with a UKIP balance can and should be stopped from attempting to take over a section. As it happens, there is nothing wrong with the section as it stands. It is balanced, it is fair, it is reasonable. Any claim to bias is, in itself, biased. doktorb _words^deeds 00:30, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not suprised that you have very little interest in taking this further. It is after all a grievance against yourself and your conduct!

Sorry but no one is attempting to change it. Forgive me for shouting but you are not getting the message: "ONCE THE POLICY WAS EXPLAINED, I ACCEPTED THAT THERE WAS NO PROBLEM WITH THE TARGET SEAT EDITS! THAT WAS THE ISSUE" You then proceeded to start reverting text that had been agreed by other editors some time ago "IT WAS THAT AND THAT ALONE WHAT I OBJECTED TO" this can clearly be backed up in the comments, it was you that was no assuming good faith which has lead you to prempt the possibility of WP:UNDUE, WP:BIAS, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL being violated. The point is you did this after the matter had been settled purely because your excessive reverting of already agreed text had been chalenged!213.120.148.60 (talk) 02:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, you appear to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. I, again, suggest you read WP:OWN and WP:AGF. "Already agreed text" is always open to further revision and you should step away from these attacks on other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

IP - as Bondegezou says, at the top of each edit window is a note. That note says - "Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions.". You should make yourself aware of these terms and conditions for future contributions. doktorb _words^deeds 08:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Fixed Term Parliaments Act

Currently, there is a lot of material about the legislative process behind this law, including things that were at one time proposed and later amended, making it quite difficult to disentangle what actually became law.

I feel that all this material is out of place in this article; we should confine ourselves to the law as enacted, which is the only thing that actually affects the next election. Readers who want more detail about how the Act became law should be referred to the dedicated article on that subject. Anybody disagree? Grover cleveland (talk) 06:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

UKIP?

I know it's been debated before, but since they seem to be fast becoming "mainstream" should they be added to the election box and so change it like how the election box is for the 2013 Local Elections page. In 2010 UKIP came fourth in term's of share of the vote with 3% support but since then the party has obviously surged in support and will most likely get at least low double digit figure's even if it does badly. In the run up to the local election's the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" (They refused to back any of them) but they included UKIP on that page, not as an "other" like the Green Party but as a main party. Last night on Channel 4 they said that "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included, I understand why people have been reluctant to include them before but now that mainstream media has actually started referring to them as equals alongside the Conservative's, Labour and the Liberal Democrat's and the fact that we've seen some real success for the party at the ballot box in these latest local election's as well as all the second place finishes we've seen in parliamentary by elections and the fact that they continue to at least match the Liberal Democrat's in the polls surely means that they should now be included in the infobox Guyb123321 (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of UKiP in target seats.

Although UKiP are not going to win any seats, they will have an affect on the target seats and it would be useful to see their target list for comparative purposes. Secondly, it would be useful fo the table to show the number of votes as well as the percentage which would illustrate just how many people it takes to change a government in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.201.114 (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

Surely UKIP should be added to the infobox so that the article remains impartial in light of current affairs. This would keep in line with procedure for election articles in other countries (e.g. Italy 2013, in regard to M5S)86.179.144.252 (talk) 12:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Please check the talk page archives; this has been debated before. — Richard BB 13:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

And the conclusion to that debate was "reconvene on 3rd May 2013", which was with the intention, I guess, of demonstrating whether UKIP can win real seats at real elections. Conclusion: they can. 2.29.219.151 (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe every party contesting a seat should be included as the smaller parties also have a reasonable chance of getting into government. If the most popular party wins just a handful of seats short of a majority I imagine any of, for example, the SNP, Plaid Cymru or the Northern Ireland parties might get on board to form a coalition government.Cymrodor (talk) 11:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

UKIP - some logic to this in the current circumstances

I don't support, or vote for, UKIP, but this is getting silly. The latest opinion poll tonight has

Labour 35% Conservative 24% UKIP 22% Lib Dem 11%

On that basis they are plainly among, at least, the main four parties contesting the next election. They have double the support of one of the parties which is listed as a mainstream contender in this article. I take the criticism that their support may erode by, or in, the actual campaign, but that can be addressed nearer the time. Doing so pre-emptively seems to me to be engaging in WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. 2.29.219.151 (talk) 19:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As it has been said again and again, their current popularity is irrelevant. It has been in the news that if there were a general election right now, despite the fact that had 23% of the vote in the local elections, they'd still fail to win a single seat. Ultimately, UKIP may be the fourth most popular party, but they have zero seats while so many minor parties have at least one. — Richard BB 20:55, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that one rule of thumb has been 5% in the polling at various articles around the project. If UKIP end up winning 15% of the vote and no seats, there will still be a strong argument for including them in the post-election infobox. The reason is that the infobox should operate as a summary of the article. At the moment, the large share UKIP is drawing is an important part of the story of this election (and this is an article about this election, not the last one). A seatless party that eviscerates the Conservatives would likewise be an important part of the story post-election, making infobox inclusion at least a consideration should it get a significant vote share. Right now, excluding UKIP feels biased, and I say that as someone who agrees with very little of what it says and expects to see it crater in 2015. -Rrius (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is nonsense to suggest that they wouldn't win a single seat anyway. Sure, if their rise from 3% to 23% meant they simply got a uniform extra 20% in each constituency, that wouldn't deliver any seats, but their vote is - to some extent - concentrated. Not as efficiently as other parties, but still in some areas, especially coastal towns in the South and East of England. With their 23% in the local elections they got the most votes in seven constituencies. The Green Party managed to win a seat with 0.9% of the national vote, it is simply not credible to suggest that UKIP would do 25 times better but not edge a single constituency. 2.29.219.151 (talk) 07:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

RSs say UKIP are unlikely to win any, or more than a handful of, seats at the next general election, even on 22% (And WP:RECENT would say not to make a decision on a single poll). So is this article about who wins seats or about vote share? Ceteris paribus, it surely has to be about who wins seats because that is who is being elected. However, nor can we deny that a sufficiently high vote share would have impact even in the absence of a single seat being won. So I'm leaning towards Rrius' view at present. Bondegezou (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

As I can see that there are valid points on both sides of the argument, I think I'll neither support nor oppose UKIP's inclusion. — Richard BB 08:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The infoboxes for articles for forthcoming elections for other countries are responsive (with some lag to take into account WP:RECENT, WP:RS etc.) to opinion poll figures. However, all the examples I'm thinking of are countries using proportional systems, so vote share translates simply into seats won. That doesn't work in the UK and I think we have to be led by seats, not vote share. On the other hand, imagine there was a general election and UKIP got 20%: regardless of how many seats they won, that would clearly be notable and we'd include them in the infobox.

So, with UKIP consistently polling these higher figures, doing well in elections and (critically) being described by reliable sources as a significant part of the next election, I think it's appropriate to include them in the infobox. I would suggest we put them 4th in the infobox (on the basis of what happened last time and on the basis that they are still predicted to get fewer seats than the other 3). I would also suggest we take them out again if the winds change and the polls and reliable sources are saying something very different in 6 months time.

All that said, I agreed with Richard BB that there are valid points on both sides of the argument and I don't feel strongly one way or the other. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

In response to 2.29.219.151, we have to be led by what reliable sources say, not our own reasoning. (That said, I would point out that your reasoning is flawed. UKIP got three and a half time as many votes as the Greens at the last election, but the Greens got an MP and UKIP didn't even come close to doing that. For that matter, UKIP did nearly 22 times better than the Alliance Part of Northern Ireland in total votes, but Alliance got an MP and UKIP didn't. That's first-past-the-post for you.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I do think the fact that UKIP have consistently beat the Liberal Democrat's in EVERY SINGLE poll taken since the local election's and according to the graph below they are on the rise does warrant their inclusion in the infobox. Also the fact that the newspaper "The Sun" had an article on the "main parties" & included UKIP on that page, (not as an "other" like the Green Party) but as a main party and also the fact that Channel 4 now is saying thing's like "were now joined by representatives of the 4 main party's" with UKIP's Nigel Farage being included just show's that they are now a main party and should be considered as one.

The fact is whether you want to go on election results (4th in the last general election, 2nd in last european election, 3rd in percentage vote/4th in seat's at last local election's) or if you wan't to go on the fact that they are now being included by the mainstream media as one of the main party's or if you wan't to look at polling result's which is showing them consistently beating the Lib Dem's. In conclusion it all seems to point to them deserving a place on the infobox along with the other three party's. Guyb123321 (talk) 18:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The arguments about UKIP's chances of winning a seat seem irrelevant. Many other parties with sitting MPs and which will again have MPs elected in 2015 are not included on this page, which I believe is wrong (see my commments above). Cymrodor (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove labour!

Due to some very useless editing, the very badly written UKIP box has been put inbetween the conservatives and libdems, although labour has much more of a majority. Do not remove labour. If you MUST insert UKIP, put in the box properly. I recommend you look at the next EU election page, they have done it much better there if you wish to include UKIP <fontcolor="#8000FF">Jacob

UKIP was added by an IP without prior discussion (even though there's a consensus against adding them in there). Thank you for removing them and correcting the article. — Richard BB 10:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is consensus against adding UKIP to the infobox. Indeed, the above section suggests there is a weak consensus for adding them (in 4th place). Bondegezou (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There is definitely consensus against putting UKIP in the box. Although UKIP are very popular, it is unlikely they will be winning any seats. Jacob

So, are we adding UKIP to the infobox or not?

Given the discussion in the sections above, it seems to me that the editing community leans in favour of adding UKIP to the infobox. Personally, I think -- given how the media are now reporting the situation and the actions taken by some pollsters, i.e. on what WP:RS are doing -- that it is now time to do so. However, Richard BB recently suggested that there was "a consensus against adding them in there". I'm taking a break from Wikipedia soon until later in the month, but I thought I'd kick off a discussion to try and clarify people's views on this matter. Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd just like to quickly point out (as I forgot to do so above) that I'm not necessarily against UKIP being added (I think there are good arguments on either side, so I'll stay neutral for the time being), but I was under the impression that there was a consensus against adding them. However, it seems that I was mistaken, so please add them if that's the community decision. — Richard BB 13:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll make that change before I go, but I don't mind if anybody wants to revert and discuss the matter further here. However, in the absence of any strong objections, here goes... Bondegezou (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Cancel that, can't make the code work! I'll leave it. If someone else wants to... Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I just had a go and am equally stumped. The document for it is here, if anyone is willing to wade through and decipher it. — Richard BB 14:12, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus. doktorb _words^deeds 18:07, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

No there is clearly no consenus for parliamentary elections to the house of Commons as they have NO SEATS, but they are sensibly added to the European Parliamentary Elections infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

The best comparison is the 1983 General Election The Social Democrats finished Third but the Liberals were in the Infobox not the Social Democrats.

No, the 1983 article (clearly written after the event) lists the SDP/Liberal Alliance in third place in the infobox.

Having no current seats seems beside the point to me. Similar election articles for other countries list parties without current representation when they are considered significant participants in a forthcoming election (according to reliable sources). It is now standard for reliable sources in the UK to include UKIP in opinion poll results and talk about them as a significant factor in the election. The party is generally polling above 10% and often above the LibDems. We have to be led by RS, so I think we have to add UKIP to the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Polls will crumble in to dust UKIP will come UKIP will go. The Referendum Party do not appear in the 1997 Infobox. UKIP have zero seats and will not overtake parties like the DUP or SNP if they win by-elections in the time before the next general Election. If UKIP win a significant number of seats and don't just get loads of votes then they can quite legitimately be added to the infobox after the election and unquestioningly added to the 2020 General Election box. Inclusion in this infbox is crystal balling. Sport and politics (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

There's another issue. "Visual Editor" hates templates. I dread to think what's going to happen with the Euro elections.... doktorb _words^deeds 10:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It is crystal-balling to predict UKIP will "crumble in to dust". It is not crystal-balling to reflect how reliable sources are covering the next election. We have to reflect reliable sources. Bondegezou (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is crystal balling to say they will win seats at the next election, so warrant inclusion. The current table is based on including the parties forming the governing coalition and the official opposition. So unless UKIP become the official opposition or a party included in the governing coalition, UKIP do not warrant inclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 11:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Its seems to me that to make any assumption of what will actually happen in the general election is crystal balling. All we can do is go on evidence and as Bondegezou says look at what our reliable sources are telling us. They are certainly giving UKIP sufficient coverage, look at the pollsters and everything. Also I would just like to point out that had May the 2nd been a general election then UKIP would have won 11 Westminster seats. Now if we bear in mind that those elections took place in less than half of the English Westminster seats, it seems that UKIP are in Westminster terms about as electorally significant as the LibDems and are therefore just as likely to form a coalition as the LibDems are. Now you will probably say that "ohhh its down to low turnout, blah blah blah". The fact of the matter is you would be crystal balling to say what the turnout at the next election will be. We have to work with the evidence we've got. I think for only 2 people to say that there is not consensus when from the above section there clearly is kind of reinforces the point that there is concensus for such an edit. Though what is most important is what our reliable sources say: The BBC's weekly countdown to the election are always mentioning UKIP for example. There is also increasing talk of them being included in the TV debates as well (if they happen anymore), which kind of says it all really. 212.159.166.201 (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"Had May 2nd been a general election...." No, no, no. First thing, there's no such thing as a "universal swing" at the best of times, but most certainly not when the only elections are amongst a select number of County Councils. It's far, far, far too far fetched to claim 11 seats for UKIP - indeed I would have to ask for more than just one "citation needed". Unlike the Greens (who worked Brighton for decades), UKIP has no one single town or city it has "worked" in the same way. They can't just assume seats will fall to them on the basis of inflated polls, when there's no single town or city with enough preparation to guarantee success. I take the point that there's a lot of coverage at the moment, but I'm concerned at what precedent we might be setting. At the very least, an editor can remove UKIP just as quickly as they're added if 2014 is not as impressive as it currently looks. doktorb _words^deeds 03:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I draw back to the simplest way of answering this. The infobox is only for the Official Governing Coalition Parties right now and not who could or could not be after the election and who the Official Opposition are right now and not who could and could not be after the election. The two Governing Coalition parties are the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. Te Official Opposition are the Labour Party. That is fact and not speculation and not subject to media coverage or opinion polls. Adding anyone else to the infobox is just crystal balling and POV pushing. After the election the performance of the parties based on actual results will dictate the content of the infobox. Before hand just because some users like UKIP and are doing well in some opinion polls are totally meaningless they are just another party looking to gain their first seats at the next General Election. I fail to see where the discussion like this is for 2008 when the British National Party were riding high and looked like they could win seats in the 2010 general election. Just because a few opinion polls say one thing and some users like what they say do not dictate the content of Wikipeida pages. The Parties forming the Official Governing Coalition and Official Opposition are the only parties which should can imperially be added without individual opinions arguing this or that about their inclusion. If the green party had similar UKIP levels of coverage would we argue for their inclusion? Sport and politics (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, the Lib Dems should not be in any infoboxes for previous years, shouldn't have been in the version of this article that existed before the 2010 election, and should be removed if the Coalition breaks up before the next election and either the Conservatives or Labour go into the next election in a minority government. No one is saying UKIP should have a place because they will win seats at the election. But what is fact is that they are currently polling above the Liberal Democrats and above 10% basically all year. They are, at this point, a significant part of the story of the pre-election period, and so it only makes sense they appear in the infobox. This fixation on seats leads me to wonder what people plan to do if UKIP out poll the Lib Dems but win no seats. Surely it would be bizarre to leave them out. Finally, to answer your last question, of course we would argue for the Greens' inclusion if their polling were where UKIP's is now. Not everyone who thinks UKIP should be in the infobox support them. Or even the right wing of politics. -Rrius (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Those election boxes have been completed post election and are in their current state after the event. This is for a future event so the two are not comparable. If the Governing Coalition breaks up before the election and a different Governing Coalition is formed, I would argue for the removal from the infobox of the Liberal Democrats, yes. The opinion poll argument is a nonsense and is irrelevant this infobox is for the Governing Coalition Parties and the Party of the Official opposition, not parties doing well in Opinion Polls or Local Government Elections or European Parliamentary Elections, there are separate articles for those elections.

The appropriate articles in question are Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. European Parliament election 2014, United Kingdom local elections, 2011, United Kingdom local elections, 2012, United Kingdom local elections, 2013, United Kingdom local elections, 2014 Sport and politics (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Since that rationale has never been followed (the Lib Dems have been in for as long as we have had infoboxes), it is highly unlikely to form the basis for decision here. Your assertion that "this infobox is for the Governing Coalition Parties and the Party of the Official opposition" is obviously nonsense since it has never applied before and never been agreed to. That is simply what you wish. You say that the article I listed aren't relevant, but how the Lib Dems were treated before the 2010 election in the article then bearing this article's name is directly applicable. The Lib Dems were neither government nor official opposition, so by your view of what infoboxes should be, they should not have been included. But they were. And frankly, your position just doesn't make sense. This is an article about the next election, not about which parties form the government and official opposition. Which parties did particularly well at the last election is relevant to this election, but not the only relevant thing.

The opinion poll argument is not nonsense or irrelevant since it is has been used to decide questions about infoboxes at election articles across the project. The point of an infobox is to provide a meaningful summary of the article, and pretending that UKIP is not a factor at this point is absurd. It only makes sense that in a pre-election period where UKIP, for better or worse, are a major part of the story that information about them is provided at the top of the article. -Rrius (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Rrius has pretty much summed up the inconsistency of Sport and politics's position. I agree to say that UKIP will take these seats is crystal balling but it is also crystal balling to say that they won't and that's the problem with Doktorbuk's whole argument. It is also crystal balling to assume that this is an inflated poll. If you look at the evidence: UKIP have been steadily growing as has their membership and with it their media coverage etc etc. So I'm afraid Doktorbuk you can be the best psephologist or political predictor in the world but (with respect) your opinions of the evidence and predictions are not valid as you are not what Wikipedia can consider to be a reliable source. However, the evidence before us is. 212.159.166.201 (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

(out dent) There is clearly no consensus for addition and their addition is simply media coverage and a few opinion polls putting them in double figures.As doctorb has said there is no uniform swing and there is no guarantee of seats. There is no comaprison between previous election infoboxes and future election infoboxes and previous way things have been done are not a precedent binding on how this article must behave. I would take a look at similar election inforboxes on local elections take Isle of Wight before the election there was no inclusion on the Island Independents even though they stood in nearly every seat and if opinion polls had been undertaken should have been shown to have a high level of support. That info box only included the top two parties the party of the official opposition the Conservatives and the Island Independents who took control albeit as a minority) UKIP Labour and Libdems are not included even though they won seats and UKIP got a fair chunk of votes. Adding UKIP here just based on doing well in local elections recently and opinion polls is not a firm basis for anything, if their support collapses do we remove them or keep them as they were once riding high no we do not add based on opinion polls as they are not representations of the electorate. Do we add the referendum party to the 1997 GE box because they finished fourth and got loads of votes. No we have not and nor did we add them before the election. This addition is just nonsense. If UKIP are added here considering they have ZERO seats and therefor no representationin the House of Commons it could easily be argued that the parties represented eg the DUP SNP Greens Respect Sinn Fien should be added to the infobox. I see no arguments for their inclusion, even though those parties are represented in the House of Commons and UKIP have no representation. The house of Commons is not a PR house it is an FPTP house so it is seats won and not votes garnered. Addition of only UKIP is therefore ludicrous.

Why don't we just do a Request for Comment? SOXROX (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to. Sport and politics (talk) 19:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see its opinion polls and a one off local election result. That happens from time to time and it needs to be sustained in other elections to add them in ----Snowded ^TALK 19:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that's a great approach either. Which elections count? What result is necessary to count? How many elections are we talking about?. What we really need to do is stop talking for the moment about UKIP and start working toward a consensus that will apply regardless of the parties involved. Any such decision will of necessity have an arbitrary element, and we should understand at the outset that if someone says, "They do X at Y country's article," they are simply drawing an analogy, not asserting that the other article's decision binds us. -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added UKIP

I'm exhausted by this constant back and forth nonsense. So I've added UKIP. Let's move on to working together on more important things - constituency articles, Bills and Acts of Parliament, ANYTHING - rather than this trivial claptrap doktorb _words^deeds 12:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed UKIP as the addition does not command Consensus, makes the Infobox look absurd and adds a party to the Infobox which has no representation in the house and gives off an impression that they could nominate a Prime Minister Candidate after the election. Addition is highly premature and misleading. Sport and politics (talk) 12:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I would ordinarily agree. But we're getting distracted by this nonsense 94.117.233.117 (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be the case but we can't edit wikipeida articles on the basis of users acting on a "grind down patience" approach to get their preferred version added. Sport and politics (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Constituency Articles

Should we create articles showing the results of each election? I don't mean we have to make 650 separate articles, but we could break it up like UK Polling Report does: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Northeast, Northwest, Yorkshire & Humber, West Midlands, East Midlands, Eastern, Southwest, Southeast, and London. Thoughts? SOXROX (talk) 17:06, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Infobox inclusion criteria

The status quo is built on the obvious notion that until now, Britain has had three major national parties, so those have been the parties listed. Two of the main criteria people have used to justify the status quo are the related questions of seats held and previous election results. The first is fairly problematic. In the UK, a lot of parties hold seats, so many in fact that the infobox couldn't hold them all. And trying to draw a line between the top three parties and the others can actually be quite difficult. The Lib Dems have only been above 5% of seats since the 1997 election after spending multiple elections below that line. Few would argue that the Lib Dems should be excluded, so where would the line be drawn?

More generally, the problem with using the previous election's results alone is that it ignores anything and everything that has happened since the last election. That just can't be right in an article that is about the next election, not the previous one.

While I do not think seats and previous elections are right as a sole measure, I do think they are important, and I will come back to that later.

I believe share of the vote is important. Even if a party wins few or no seats, if it has a high vote share, it is an important part of the story of the election. For example, if a party takes 10% nationally, but fails to win a seat, it almost certainly played spoiler in a number of seats for at least one party, and therefore affected the outcome of the election. I think it would be reasonable, after an election, if a party included were that took 1% of the seats and 5% of the vote, or just 10% even without seats. I'm not stating this as concrete proposal, but merely pointing out that vote share matters, even in a first-past-the-post jurisdiction.

But what about before elections? Opinion polls are viewed with suspicion by many, and small parties sometimes surge before an election, but collapse later on. These are genuine, but I think the first should be ignored since polling is the best indicator we have of electoral strength before an election. The second could be addressed by only including a party that has consistently polled above a given threshold for a given period. Threshold should be set so as to include parties that would create a situation like the one in the last paragraph, e.g., playing spoiler. To do so on a wide enough basis to matter, that would have to be at least 5%, but perhaps even 10%. The duration has to be long enough to avoid blips, but short enough to meaningful in the limited time between elections.

I also think we should consider a reset when the writs drop, only including parties that polled well enough in the two or three months beforehand and sticking with that lineup until the election is over unless something really bonkers happens.

So here is my proposal: In the pre-election period, the parties included in the previous elections should be included. Parties that consistently poll above 10% for six months should be added and remain until at least the writs drop unless their vote crashes so utterly that it makes no sense to retain them. At the point the writs drop, we include only the parties that have consistently polled above 10% in the past three months or were in the last election's infobox. I believe in a regularly scheduled election, the writ will drop in April, so perhaps the cutoff for such elections should be 1 January. -Rrius (talk) 22:01, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, for those keeping score, UKIP was below 10% as often as it was above it from December 2012 to March, and has been consistently above since then, so by this proposal, UKIP would remain out until September at the earliest. On the 5% measure, it would have gained admission to the infobox around last September. My source is File:UK opinion polling 2010-2015.png. -Rrius (talk) 22:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

There is an article dedicated to opinion polls surrounding the next General Election and there is a separate article for the election itself. If the results of opinion polls are to be considered the basis where is the line drawn and do you remove parties highly represented in parliament if they fall below the "inclusion threshold" in the percentage of an opinion poll, even if that party has cabinet ministers? Also do parties keep getting added and removed if they are hovering around the "inclusion threshold"? This "inclusion threshold" is unworkable and a nonsense as it is arbitrary, volatile, and removes article stability. The above proposals conflate the two separate articles on the actual election and opinion polls before the election. If you want an infobox on the opinion polls article feel free to base it on an "inclusion threshold". Having one on ere as I have demonstrated is unworkable, as you could end up removing a party of Government under that rule. Also going down an "inclusion threshold" ignores the House of commons is not composited on Proportional Representation but First Past The Post and seats won not votes given to a party. The criteria for inclusion should be simply this: “Do the party leaders get a regular question block each and every week at Prime minister Question Time or does the party have representation in the cabinet?” In previous elections in 2010 for example The Labour Party (the government), The Conservative Party (allocated 6 questions each week as the official opposition) and the Liberal Democrats (allocated 2 questions every week),would warrant inclusion as that was the set up of PMQs in the 2005-2010 parliament. In this current Parliament (2010-2015) it would be the two parties of the Ruling Coalition (Conservatives qualifying under the PMQ criteria and the Cabinet criteria) (Liberal Democrats qualifying under the Cabinet criteria) and the Official Opposition (Labour qualifying under the PMQ criteria). This is far more stable and for more clear cut than having a criteria based on a volatile “inclusion threshold” from opinion polls. Sport and politics (talk) 22:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

As I've said above, I believe the infobox is an NPOV violation if it doesn't include all parties prior to an election. After an election it's easier to draw a line (the parties than won seats – and they can all be included with the creation of {{Infobox Israeli Election}} which was specifically designed to incorporate large numbers of parties). Number 57 12:29, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: I was careful to point out, repeatedly that opinion polls would be a factor, not the factor. I said for both the pre-election period and the determination at the beginning of the election period that parties from the last election's infobox would automatically be included. So no, falling below the threshold would not remove any one. And I thought it was clear that once a party was added in the pre-election period, it would stay for the remainder of the pre-election period. Only at the beginning of the election period (when the writ drops) would there be a reconsideration of parties added during the pre-election period. None of the volatility you refer to exists, so I'd ask you to reconsider.

Your proposed criteria make no sense as it bears no relationship to what this page is about. This is an article about the next election, not the functioning of PMQs or the composition of the current cabinet. If a party is playing a significant role in the story of the election as it currently exists, why should it not be part of the story we tell here?

@Number 57: I respect that that is your opinion, but aside from that one article, about a PR election in a system where microparties often form part of the coalition after the following election and therefore play role disproportionate to their share of votes or seats, most articles around the project function quite nicely with the exact same infobox used here. Your NPOV concern is balanced by an UNDUE concern. Despite the implication of what you say, the presence of Labour does not require the inclusion of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Labour, the Conservatives, and the Lib Dems would each win a significant share of the vote and of seats and play spoiler in several two-way contests involving the other two parties if an election reflected current polling. UKIP would do two of those things, but likely not win many, if any, seats. It does not seem any other party could claim that, especially not across all of England, Scotland, and Wales. There are multiple places to draw lines for inclusion, including many that would restrict the infobox to the three traditional major parties. -Rrius (talk) 00:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is some evidence, not proof, as to the short termism and meaningless nature of using Opinion Polls in any way as any form of inclusion criteria.

I an not entirely sure what the phrase "playing a significant role in the story of the election" is meant to mean, by that criteria we could include parties which have no chance of winning a single seat, such as the Referendum Party in the 1997 infobox. It could also warrant the inclusion of Nationalist parties in Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland which has never been argued for ( to my knowledge) as they do not stand across the UK and there for could not form a government. Also the phrase is very very subjective and will just cause more complete rubbish discussions which go on for ever like this one to occur. Sport and politics (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Sport and politics, I don't disagree with your critique of opinion polls, but Wikipedia policy on original research, it seems to me, is clear that it's not up to us to make those judgements. Likewise, Rrius, your predictions of UKIP's outcome at the next election are plausible, but again, OR. We have to follow reliable sources. If the reliable sources feel the evidence from opinion polls and elsewhere is sufficient to conclude that UKIP will play a significant, national role in the next election, then that's what the article has to say (and one way it could do that is by including UKIP in the infobox, but maybe changes to the article text are also warranted). Let's get back to Wiki-basics: that's always a good way to solve disputes. Core rule: this is an encyclopaedia that cites reliable secondary sources. Bondegezou (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

RFC on UKIP

There is an ongoing and EXTREMELY (note the emphasis) contentious debate on the inclusion of UKIP in the infobox. For those of you who do not know, UKIP (United Kingdom Independenc Party) has made a recent rise in British politics. In the aftermath of the 2013 United Kingdom local elections, where UKIP received the second highest amount of votes, many have been arguing to put them on the table with the top 3 parties, Conservative, Labour, and Liberal Democratic. While UKIP and the Liberal Democrats have similar polling numbers, UKIP still has no MPs in Parliament, where as the the LDs have 57 and are in the government. Should UKIP be included in the table? Feel free to participate in the discussion, and please let it be a civil coversation. SOXROX (talk) 19:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Postpone consideration until we develop a consensus on inclusion criteria instead of having an ad hoc determination for just this party. -Rrius (talk) 21:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Include If we have to have an infobox, I believe it would be an NPOV violation to leave them out as they are polling similar numbers to the Lib Dems. However, I would rather the infobox was removed as an NPOV violation full stop. I have previously said they should be scrapped, but using them before the elections take place is even more of a problem than putting them in afterwards because no-one knows what the results will be. Some readers who come here for information will look at the infobox and assume the parties included are the only ones running. Number 57 12:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Remove Oppose Inclusion - they have no seats in the House of Commons which means they have no representation in the House of Commons where as at least 9 parties have seats in the House of commons and are not in the Official Opposition or Governing Coalition, so have greater representation in the House of Commons than UKIP. If UKIP are include all of the parties with representation in the really should be included House of Commons as well. Other than that the House of Commons is a First Past The Post house and not a PR house, so share of vote is a meaningless measure of representation that will be received in the House of Commons. Sport and politics (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Neutral I've moved from objecting to neutral. I'm exhausted by this two year onslaught of pointless to-and-fro arguments. There's far, far more constructive work to be done, and yet we're battling obsessed IP addresses and just as obsessed full-time editors over and over again. It's doing the project no good, it's doing the article no good, it's doing our editor retention no good. The next election is two years away, and soon we're going to be battling candidate selection and all sorts (just imagine if the boundary changes were accepted, I fear that I'd be creating all the new seats on my own!). Let's just accept that the UKIP factor is a great unknown. There's fairly good reasons to include them (opinion polls, etc.) and fairly good reasons to leave them out (as SaP has outlined above). But I genuinely have lost all interest in keeping up this fight. Either we do something now, or we argue for two years. What do you want to to? doktorb _words^deeds 07:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Inclusion - This is WP:CRYSTALBALL. The fact that UKIP did well at the last local election does not mean that they will do well at the next general election. At the 2009 European election they came second with 16.5% and 13 MEPS. Less than twelve months later, they could only obtain 3.1% and no MPs at the 2010 general election. The infobox is meant to be summary of the article. It is not there to provide a comprehensive list of contesting parties and their results.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 15:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Having any party in the infobox at this stage is WP:CRYSTALBALL. Number 57 16:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • I don't agree. Whatever results the three largest parties get, we can be reasonably certain that we will be putting them in the infobox. Even if one of them went down to single figures, or got wiped out entirely, that would be a major story (if not the major story) of the election and one that we would want the infobox to reflect.

The same does not apply to UKIP. We have no reason to assume that they or any other party will make a significant gain in 2015 - certainly in terms of seats, which is the prime measure of success in a first-past-the-post election. Let's remember that if the 2013 local election result is repeated in 2015, UKIP will still not win a single seat at Westminster, and that there was a very large drop in their vote share between the European election in 2009 and the general election in 2010. Kahastok talk 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - I have made plain my views before. The Infobox is about elections to the House of Commons, not opinion polling, and UKIP has gained no seats in the House of Commons therefore should not be included. New Progressive (talk) 19:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion per previous comments ----Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - As per New Progressive=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion as per my arguments above. I find it difficult to see that UKIP belongs when we are not proposing to include the DUP, SNP, Sinn Féin, et al, who are actually defending seats in the House of Commons. Kahastok talk 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not a registered member, but how about adding all parties that have representation within the current parliament (e.g. SNP/Plaid/DUP). That seems like a reasonable criteria for inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.238.29 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion The basis should be general election results, not opinion polls and other mid term results. The largest parties should be included. UKIP's candidacy is a very long way down, behind the Alliance and Greens. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - Until the election results are known, there is no point including UKIP, which has no seats in the Commons. Opinion polls and council by-election numbers are not relevant for this infobox. RGloucester (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion - Including the UKIP is WP:CRYSTALBALL. I agree with Kahastok that it is difficult to include the UKIP when not including parties that already have seats in Parliament. Martinvl (talk) 07:43, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose. While I think that the pro-kippers have a few good points, their argument is inherently flawed: if the votes they received in the local elections were translated into a general election, they would not win a single seat. This is a party that has high support in the opinion polls, true, but that's why we have the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election article. This article is about seats, and UKIP do not have any, their local election votes imply they won't win any, and to suggest otherwise defies WP:CRYSTAL. — Richard BB 08:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. I understand Rrius' desire to develop a new criterion, a new rule, for what parties to include in the infobox, but actually I think that would be counter-productive and against the spirit of WP:SYNTH and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I suggest instead it is better to consider these issues on a case-by-case basis using the existing rules, the foundations of Wikipedia: WP:RS, WP:V etc. Indeed, if I might say so, there is a worrying lack of reference to basic policy in the discussion above. This is WP:NOTAVOTE and decisions should be policy-based. And when it comes to balance within an article, how much emphasis to put on one thing or another (and that's what an infobox is doing), policy is clear that we should take our lead from what reliable sources say, rather than what we as editors may feel. That's why I think the infobox should include UKIP, because key reliable sources - i.e the British media - when they talk about the next election, generally nowadays talk in terms of UKIP being one of four key parties (irrespective of how many seats they may or may not win; and in a way that they never talk about the DUP, say). As for WP:CRYSTALBALL, I suggest reading what it says there: the way to avoid problems is, again, to follow reliable sources. I also respect the view expressed by Timrollpickering and others above that UKIP have no current Commons representation. However, I followed the articles for forthcoming elections in Italy and Iceland this year and both happily included parties in their infoboxes who had no existing representation in those parliaments, so I don't see why we can't do the same (where reliable sources support). I see no policy rule that says an infobox must only reflect the prior election result. Bondegezou (talk) 16:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Answer to Bondegezou Iceland and Italy use PR to elect members and the UK has no form of PR whatsoever in the House of Commons it is purely FPTP. So more votes = more seats in Iceland or Italy. That is not the case in the UK, where move votes do not = more seats. The Referendum Party in 1997 polled the fourth highest number of votes across the UK yet got zero seats. UKIP and the BNP in 2010 polled more votes than the Green Party yet the Green party ended up with representation in the House of Commons and UKIP and the BNP did not. This also is a policy based discussion based on the differences the UK election system has and the detachment between votes and representation in the UK. Also it is based in policy as the inclusion of a party based only on opinion polls is a new concept here and needs discussing thoroughly. The reliable sources is a red herring as what exactly is a "reliable opinion poll"? The polls may have been conducted accurately but as the 1992 UK General election showed opinion polls and local election result can be meaningless when predicting the results of a general election. Also all consensus is local on an issue by issue basis. If the UK used PR like Iceland and Italy then I would buy the arguments but they are not so I have to reject the arguments as trying to be "one size fits all". Sport and politics (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Answer to Sport and politics You are absolutely right that the PR systems in Iceland and Italy make translating opinion polls into seats much, much easier than the UK's first-past-the-post system. However, just because the task is more complicated doesn't, as far as I can see, change the rationale. If the next election articles for Iceland, Italy (and many other countries) can be based on more than just the previous election's result, why can't this one for the UK (even if we need to put a bit more work into the detail)? As for what exactly is a "reliable opinion poll", we don't have any real problem at Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election answering that question and, indeed, we have standard policy on what is a reliable source. But I think I've failed to explain myself here. I am not suggesting we do anything based only on opinion poll results; indeed, that seems too WP:SYNTHy to me. What I'm saying is that, following the core approach of Wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources do. We shouldn't be interpreting opinion poll results and coming up with set rules for when to include a party in the infobox. Rather, we should leave the interpretation to reliable sources, and then we report what they say. Thus, I say we should include UKIP in the infobox because reliable sources talk about UKIP as one of the key parties at the next election (because those reliable sources are interpreting the opinion polls and the local election results etc.). Bondegezou (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

This is going to sound deliberately facetious but elections aren't held tomorrow, they are held on polling day and in the case of the 2015 General election that will be 7 May 2015 (excluding exception circumstances), so the question is effectively meaningless. Also does Danny Alexander qualify as a reliable sources when he said "UKIP will come UKIP will go"? Also do these articles count as reliable sources whihc cite "the continuing collapse in support for Ukip" [1] [2] [3] [4] Sport and politics (talk) 18:27, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment Just because a political party may have an impact on the next general election it doesn't mean they will. It is far too soon to determine whether UKIP are actually in the middle of a mid term jump (at the expense of the mid term Tory party) or whether it is actually a long term trend or change in voting intentions. It will not be possible to determine their impact on the subject of this article until much nearer the election (and we see if there is a set of debates which they are included in). There is little actual media mention of the next general election at the moment and only a fraction of it treating UKIP as anything more than a potential player in it. The one change that has happened of late (since April 2012) is that UKIP is now regularly included in the questions asked by the opinion pollsters and therefore by the media outlets that pay to have them performed. This could just as easily stop UKIP they were to lose heavily at a local or euro election and cease to be an ongoing story. Remember, despite the fact that opinion pollsters ask 'How would you vote if there were a General Election held tomorrow?' or something similar the reason they are asked is to judge the current political climate and not as a prediction of the next election.

• Are they a player at the next euro elections? Yes - as they received the second most seats at the previous one
• Are they a player at the next local elections? Probably - as they received 23% at the previous one but they are only defending 15 seats
• Are they a player at the next general election? I can't say yet and won't be able to until 2015 => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion for now I came here via the WP:FRS and am not very familiar with UK politics, but some general thoughts: I think it is a good starting point to go by the current situation in the parliament and include the major parties there. However, I also think we shall take cue of how reliable sources cover the election, for instance which and how many debates the different parties are invited to. As this election is not up until 2015, I assume (without really following this) that the campaigns and election coverage are hardly in full swing and in that way it seems premature to include UKIP based on election coverage because we have just seen a tiny bit of it yet. If they however get invited to the major debates, for instance the party leader debates with the three current major parties, it might be right to include them later. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment I take Iselilja and others' point that maybe this is too soon. When we get nearer the election, there will be more reliable source coverage and the situation will be clearer. I also take Sports and politics' point that we have had a recent run of articles suggesting the UKIP craze is over. I hope, perhaps, we can agree on the principle that the decision should be driven by reliable source coverage (and that the infobox can include parties without current Commons representation if reliable source coverage indicates so), even if there is still debate over quite what the balance of reliable source coverage currently is. For me, what is significant is that pollsters and the reporting of polls now treats UKIP the same as the three biggest parties, as Spudgfsh noted. That tipped my opinion towards inclusion having previously opposed the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion (for now) per comments of Sport and politics, obi2canibe, Kahastok and RichardBB.--JayJasper (talk) 19:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion per WP:TOOSOON, UKIP done well at the last election but doesn't mean they'll do better at next election... -
  →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 20:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC tag as it seems clear now that consensus opposes UKIP's inclusion (at least, for now). Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

End of July 2013: infobox debate summary

If I might try to summarise debate above... There is a current consensus against including UKIP in the infobox (although a few said 'too soon' and seemed open to re-considering the matter later). The debate on whether to remove the infobox entirely was more evenly matched, but I think it fair to conclude there is no consensus for change and, therefore, that the infobox should stay for now. Rrius suggested some rules for when to include a party in the infobox, but these did not attract consensus support.

So, where does that leave us? The infobox should stay and include only the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. I cannot see much appetite for re-opening the debate any time soon, but various suggestions have been made for the sort of events/coverage that might warrant a fresh look. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No infobox, no problem

The to-and-fro arguments going on three years can be traced to one thing - the infobox. By removing the box until the election is over, we can move on to mor important and constructive topics doktorb _words^deeds 21:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent - I fully support this. Number 57 22:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't. Instead of an incessant discussion about who should be included, there would be an incessant discussion about whether to restore the infobox. Regardless of which parties are in the infobox, having one is better than not having one because it provides information that people want easy access to. If you are sick of the back and forth, stop participating. That's why I only occasionally contribute to the UKIP discussion. What we really need is a consensus around neutral criteria for when a party is included. Once we have that, we can end debate on UKIP, one way or another, by simply pointing to the criteria. Trying to decide on an ad hoc basis whether to include UKIP simply will not work because many UK-based editors will argue based on their perceptions, sometimes subconscious, of UKIP. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is foolish, and is unlikely to work anyway, so let's just adopt a rule and stick with it. -Rrius (talk) 00:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea from Doktorbuk, seems a good solution. - Galloglass 07:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Perfect idea; just scrap the infobox. Sport and politics (talk) 08:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both User:Galloglass and User:Sport and politics. My justification remains as it did last night. The infobox means very little pre-election anyway, it only acts as an accurate summary after the election, and clearly acts as a "block" to more constructive editing elsewhere in the project (such as, if you look at my contributions, filling in the missing election results from Salford East, a gap in the project which should have been filled years ago). So the infobox is going, again, backed up with editor support above. I throw the question back at supporters - Why should an infobox appear three years before polling day? doktorb _words^deeds 08:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

So after months of discussion you decide in less than a day that you have consensus and that the onus is reversed? Amazing. -Rrius (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A further point is that there is an RfC ongoing. Simply scrapping the infobox on the say so of a few involved editors while the process continues is shameful. The fact that you are tired of the discussion and want to direct your efforts elsewhere is just too damned bad. If you don't want to deal with it, don't. There is nothing that says you need to stay involved in the discussion to continue filling gaps in the project. And as long as we're throwing questions back and forth, why should this article, as opposed to virtually every ongoing election with an article on Wikipedia, not have an infobox just because you are tired of dealing with the UKIP question?

I have provided you multiple opportunities to discuss a neutral basis for determining which parties go in the infobox, but you have ingnored the discussion altogether. I've noted my preference above, but I am willing to settle for any rule, including that we just use the parties listed in the previous election's infobox.

As long as the rule is hard and fast and we can simply point to a consensus on that basis, some rule is better than stripping the article of something useful. To this point, we have just had everyone arguing specifically about UKIP without bothering to take a step back. That has brought about edit warring and promises to revisit the issue that were destined to be felt weren't kept.

Circling back to your last question, the infobox provides links that others find helpful (regardless of whether you do) and a neat, user-friendly summary of pertinent information right at the top of the page. In other words, it provides precisely the sort of summary infoboxes are designed for. Having answered your question, I ask mine again: Why is your annoyance with the UKIP question enough reason to (1) ignore an ongoing RfC, (2) ignore a discussion aimed at finding a simple rule to apply that would answer the UKIP question and any similar questions, and (3) remove a useful object from the article? -Rrius (talk) 09:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been going on for years, and it's crippling the constructive work we need to do on this article and elsewhere. Why do we need a summary box? Why do we need to keep this sort of argument going on all the time? No infobox until after the election, no more arguments. doktorb _words^deeds 09:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't have continued for years if you'd decided on a clear rule and stuck to it. Instead, you all threw various rationales at UKIP supporters and promised a rethink after several months based on the local elections. Even so, right now, there is an RfC that looks set to declare UKIP should stay out. So all of this bitching about years wasted is pretty unconvincing. There is currently no consensus to include UKIP, and there will soon be a very strong basis on which to conclude there is consensus against including UKIP. If the anon IPs continue after that, simply semi-protecting the article will be enough to deal with them.

I already answered your question about the use of the infobox: it provides links and information valuable to readers. That is the reason infoboxes exist.

Finally, it is absolutely wrong to suggest that removing the infobox eliminates arguments. It simply shifts the subject. At this moment, I may be the only one taking up this argument, but before long, people are going to come to the article, see the lack, and add it back. Perhaps including some of those above who think they are actually participating in an RfC. -Rrius (talk) 11:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(outdent) This is looking more like Rrius against everyone else. This cannot be turned into a battle ground. The RfC is showing a clear move towards not including UKIP and this discussion is showing favour for removing the whole infobox in its entirety. Consensus is not unanimity. Rrius I am going to say this and it is not an attack but, one editor cannot hold a whole page hostage by long posts on a very very minor point and the engaging in edit warring and the posting of edit summaries which assume bad faith. This is beginning to feel a lot like article ownership. As doktorb has said this has go on too long, if it continues I will suggest a topic ban for Rrius to prevent disruption and to allow for some calmness and stability to overwhelm this article. Sport and politics (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Rrius is a good editor, and he is rightly arguing that it doesn’t make sense to REMOVE THE PURPOSE OF THE RFC before the RfC is completed. To do what you are doing, you’d kind of need to start another RfC or direct the people that stated their opinion there to discuss this matter here. In fact, it feels like you are doing a similar thing to that which you are accusing Rrius. RGloucester (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to defend editors or otherwise, those discussions are for a different place. I simply posted the above comments to point out that one editor cannot act against the consensus of other users on a page simply because thy genuinely believe they are pursuing the right outcome. I have also posted what I have done to remind of the obligations of Wikpedia Policies and Guidelines. I have also pointed out the potential consequences of going down these roads for users. Any further discussions on users please make them in the appropriate places. Sport and politics (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You are accusing Rrius of bad faith, even though you say "it is not an attack" and I have a right to defend him and say that I disagree with your idea of "consensus". Consensus is the RfC above, which at the moment is leaning towards not including UKIP. It, however, it is not in favor of removing the infobox, even though that was an option that you previously advocated in that RfC. In that case, it doesn’t make sense to violate the consensus of the RfC, which isn’t even finished, and go ahead and remove the infobox. People in the RfC could’ve advocated for that option, but they haven’t so far. Wait until the RfC is completed. RGloucester (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to continue this discussion please do so on my user talk page not on this talk page.Sport and politics (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"Consensus is not unanimity." Consensus is also not four people agreeing to something over half a day when an RfC is ongoing regarding the same topic and when those four have failed to address why they have the right to disregard the ongoing RfC and why merely being sick of a discussion is enough reason to remove something useful. I am not holding anything hostage. I want the RfC to be respected, and I want a real discussion about such a drastic change. A real discussion means notifying everyone who participated in the RfC and the previous discussions. Deciding after half a day, most of which was in nighttime in the relevant country, on four editors's agreement is certainly not a real discussion or an appropriate basis for saying there is consensus after so many editors have participated over such a long period on the topic. And I will certainly not apologise for restoring the infobox after it was removed on such a pathetic claim of consensus. I do hope you will retract the ownership, AGF, and allegations. They are untrue, unhelpful, and unworthy. And also easily susceptible to pot/kettle replies (and with greater force) for some on your side of this discussion. I also hope you'll retract your outlandish threat of seeking a topic ban. That was as insulting as it was asinine. -Rrius (talk) 16:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Do not remove the infobox. It provides valuable links. Wait until the RfC is completed before taking action. This really makes no sense. RGloucester (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• Don't remove it. It's standard practice for next elections and this proposal is cutting off a nose to spite the face. If there are problems about inclusion then work out a consensus on the talk page and enforce it - with semi-protection and blocks if need be. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because something is "standard practice" doesn't automatically mean it is a permanent feature, consensus changes over time and evolves. If the infobox is not serving a useful purpose then why include it? What is the useful purpose of including a box listing what is essentially just common knowledge over a year away from an election. It is not very helpful and seems to be there just for the sake of it. I am also not sure what the "valuable links" included in the infobox which cannot be or are not included in the main text are. I can see the merit for its inclusion when the election is called or after the election but this far out, what is the usefulness? "A quick glance overview or summary" does not really count as a reason as the criteria for who is included is so contentious and if some more minor or unrepresented parties it may give undue weight to those parties with little or no representation before or after the Election. Sport and politics (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Timrollpickering, it's standard practice to summarise what has happened, but not what is about to happen. There's no reason to include three parties to the exclusion of others because of unwritten convention. doktorb _words^deeds 20:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

No it's standard practice on Wikipedia for forthcoming election articles to include infoboxes listing the lead parties summarising the election to come because it's a useful way to convey the information at a glance. Where to draw the line is fairly standard in RSes and the problem here seems to be a reluctance to enforce consensus against disruption. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Strongly oppose removing the infobox. It's a clear case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Instead of removing the infobox because there's a debate about it, how about we actually reach a consensus about the issue (which it looks like the RfC is doing)? To get rid of everything just because some editors want to add something to it is one of the most utterly absurd proposals I've heard. — Richard BB 12:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Don't remove it, replace it.

I suggest a table listing all the parties that won seats in the last election and changes due to bye-elections. Other parties should be lumped together as "Others". Martinvl (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand doktorbuk's frustration and applaud his lateral thinking, but I agree with others that we should conclude one RfC before rushing to remove the infobox and I agree with Timrollpickering that infoboxes are standard elsewhere, so we should be able to cope with one here! However, as I said in my previous edit, while I understand Rrius' reasoning, I don't think we need to create new rules, because we have rules here already: namely, Wikipedia follows the coverage of reliable sources. In my eyes, the only question here is: are reliable sources treating party X as being one of the main parties at the next election? Articles for forthcoming elections in other countries have proceeded on that basis reasonably well. Bondegezou (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Might I suggest it is safe to conclude that there is no consensus in favour of removing the infobox? Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. — Richard BB 09:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

Given the constant debates about UKIP culminating in the recent RfC, I have created an FAQ at the top which should help put further discussions to rest. Please add to it if you feel there is anything that needs including. — Richard BB 09:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this "Ultimately this article is about who is going to form the next government" is a gross oversimplification, and a poor argument for exclusion of UKIP (not that I'm starting that up again, just think that ain't true).

Suggest expansion of the 'political parties' section to give some context. First mention of UKIP is in a quote about tv debates with no explanation, and then reader sees they're 3rd in opinion polling...it's odd. 92.15.59.214 (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Polling for individual seats

It seems that just like in the US, where it is very common to have polls of individual congressional districts, this is getting increasingly common in the UK.

For the Eastleigh by election earlier this year, 5 polls were taken over the space of a month and it seems like this trend is only going to increase.

My question is not if we should include polls of individual seats, but where should we put them?

It says here (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/ukip-poll-boost-thanet)that UKIP is commissioning 8 polls of marginal seats with Survation and they would be very useful to include somewhere Guyb123321 (talk) 07:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This smells familiar of the UKIP pushing undertaken before, but to push an answer, individual polling for individual seats this far from an election is pointless as most polls are a snapshot in time and do are usually biased in some way albeit unconsciously bias due to the polling commissioners asking questions in a certain way. Also why should 8 opinion polls commissioned by one party be notable in anyway this is just more UKIP pushing. If the green party do 3 opinion polls do we include them if the Liberal Democrats do 50 do we include them if the BNP does 1 do we include that if Labour do 400 do we include all them if the Monster Raving Loony Party do 650 do we include all them. Patent POV pushing nonsense. This is not a forum or blog on UKIP or opinion polls pro ukip editors needs to drop flogging UKIP POVs, Sport and politics (talk) 08:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

A UKIP donor has commissioned the polls and is obviously doing so for pro-UKIP reasons. However, what matters in terms of polls being covered (in terms of established Wikipedia practice) is whether they are reliable, properly done polls. As far as I can see, these polls are reliable, properly done polls, ergo they should be covered like any other poll. (Wikipedia practice on other articles is not to exclude polls purely based on who commissioned them: e.g., we include polls commissioned by Lord Ashcroft).) On the other hand, if, Sport and politics, you have evidence to demonstrate that the polls are biased, then, fine, we don't include them.

In other words, while we have had repeated problems with POV-pushing around UKIP, I do not believe that this is a case of that.

As to where these polls should be covered, I would have thought they would be most appropriate on the relevant constituency pages, with possibly some mention on the Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election article. I wouldn't have thought they would warrant a mention here. However, if reliable secondary sources start talking about these polls lots in discussing the next election, then that would suggest they should be mentioned here.

By the way, I suspect you're both possibly mistaken to think there will be many more of these. The situation in the UK is very different to the US and it is difficult and expensive to do this sort of constituency-level polling properly. I can't see it happening very much. Bondegezou (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

While I can see what is being said here the addition of these polls needs to be done so as the balance of the article is NPOV and done in a way which does not give undue weight or influence in the articles to the fact that one political party has commissioned some opinion polling in a few seats. It needs to be balanced in the wider pictures For example the Green Party did polling in the Brighton Pavilion Seat before to 2010 election but that is not covered in the corresponding articles. Sport and politics (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

If the poll is done properly, then it's results should be inherently NPOV, if you see what I mean. One can have a "polling" section in the article and just give the result. (And if the poll is done in a biased way, we just ignore it.) Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying I am more on about the way the section is written up.If a section is written e.g. UKIP commissioned a poll conducted by ICM showed UKIP are going to be massive winners in this seat" that would clearly not be NPOV. Also there needs to be a balance of witting that the section does not give undue weight to single sources and that the sources used are actually reliable.Sport and politics (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can find out more about the polls and their methodology and see if they meet usual standards for these things. That seems like a key question. Will report back! Bondegezou (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

OK so the feeling I'm getting is these polls should just be included on the individual constituencies page. I think these polls that have been done seem totally legitimate considering the polls were done by trusted polling service, Survation and they also did not predict a blowout UKIP win, actually in the released poll UKIP is losing 35-30 to Labour with the Conservatives a very close third on 28 Guyb123321 (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was born in 1921.

I have to point out the mistake of using the national term United Kingdom to describe this nation as today, as if it were around before 1921. It wasn't. If you are referring to a nation called UK in respect of the next, 2015, general election, it cannot be acceptable to use UK in the context of pre-1921 ele tions in the British Isles. Yes, there was a UK, but a completely different nation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

It is this paragraph at the end of the opening section I object to as it is suddenly discussing the history of 2 different nations, one current, one nearly a century defunct and of territory now made up by two unrelated nations, one in the EU Eurozone and one not.

---

"This will be the 55th general election for the United Kingdom since 1801 (earlier elections took place for parliaments in Great Britain and Ireland), though the resultant Parliament will be the 56th, as the first Parliament came about after the co-option of members from the Parliament of Great Britain and the Parliament of Ireland."

The terms used make the paragraph untrue and not relevant to anything. It's a very simple point indeed. If you're going to discuss former British nations in an article about the near century old UK and a 2015 general election, it isn't acceptable to refer to the current nation a if it were a different one as of 1801. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.18.46 (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about British history and geopolitics. The current UK is the same one that was established in 1801 – the Republic of Ireland seceding in the 1920s did not mean a new UK was founded - there was merely a subtle change in name (the short form of "UK" remained unchanged) and geographical boundaries. The same thing has happened to several countries (Indonesia and Sudan both lost part of their territory in the past 20 years, but it didn't mean they were re-established). Number 57 19:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

UKIP Target Seats

I want to make it clear that this discussion is not to stray on to the topic of UKIP being included in the info box, that is a seperate discussion. This thread is about target seats. It seems incredibly strange that UKIP have not got a list of target seats on this page when parties such as Respect and the Greens have got a target seat each. There is already a significant number of UKIP target seats based on the United Kingdom local elections, 2013 and recent Parliamentary by-elections. It is also worth taking into account local council by-elections, the party clearly is, using those as an indication as to where they will most intensely target their resources. Indeed it is likely that more will emerge after the next local elections. There are several ways of credibly identifying UKIP target seats.

1. By looking at the 2013 local election results and translating them to a constituency level. The LibDemVoice website have a study on this and is already recognised as a third party reliable source.

2 Recent by-election results in Constituencies and council byelections within those constituencies and other local factors.

So far UKIP's 2013 "winning" seats and other realistic target seats include:

• Boston & Skegness - WON in 2013 locals
• South Holland & The Deepings - WON in 2013 locals
• Folkeston & Hythe - WON in 2013 locals
• North Thanet - WON in 2013 locals
• Sittingbourne and Sheppey - WON in 2013 locals
• Ayesbury - WON in 2013 locals
• Forest of Dean - WON in 2013 locals
• Castle Point - WON in 2013 locals
• Rayleigh and Wickford - WON in 2013 locals
• East Worthing and Shoreham - WON in 2013 locals
• Bognor Regis and Littlehampton - WON in 2013 locals
• Corby - came a strong 3rd in 2012 byelection even before the surge in national opinion polls
• Tunbridge Wells - Won local byelection
• Rotherham - came strong 2nd in 2012 by-election & WON local by-election
• South Shields - came 2nd in local by-election & forms local council opposition group]
• Eastleigh - came strong 2nd in recent by-election (winning most votes on the polling day). Also took some of towns local councilors/wards in 2013 elections
• Canterbury - constituency in which party leader Nigel Farage was born and currently lives in.
• Louth & Horncastle (UK Parliament constituency) - won several councillors in constituency during local elections
• North East Cambridgeshire - has strong local base of councillors at district, parish and county level
• North West Cambridgeshire - has strong local base of councillors at district, parish and county level. The party has majority control of Ramsey Parish council
• Huntingdon - has strong local base of councillors at district, parish and county level
• Buckingham - has strong local base of councillors at district, parish and county level, will be only big party challenging seat due to the three main parties not contesting the Speaker's seat
• North Norfolk - very strong showing in constituency in the Norfolk County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place
• Great Yarmouth - very strong showing in constituency in the Norfolk County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place
• North West Norfolk - very strong showing in constituency in the Norfolk County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place
• South West Norfolk - very strong showing in constituency in the Norfolk County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place
• Lowestoft - very strong showing in constituency in the Suffolk County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place
• East Surrey - very strong showing in constituency in the Surrey County Council election, 2013, a close 2nd place.

I suggest that this list of constituencies is added to the target seats table for UKIP. I can not see any reason why UKIP's target seats shouldn't be included, especially since this can all be sourced. The question is how do we incorporate it into the article. Do we create a new 'special' table for UKIP or whether we should incorporate UKIP into the existing table for the 4 main parties. I would favor the second option. Given the party's rise in the polls, the by-election results, the council election results it seems strange not to include their target seats. MassiveBagOf... (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The parties with target seats listed currently in the article are those with MPs currently in the Commons - a simple rule. The target seats given are based simply on the previous election results. Your rationale above, while with merit as a way of identifying UKIP targets, strays far too much into original research, which isn't acceptable under Wikipedia policy. On the other hand, if there was a reliable source citation discussing UKIP targets, that would be more usable. Bondegezou (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Bondegezou local election results are not a representative prediction of voting intention at a general election. Taking one seat from your list East Worthing and Shoreham Constituency in 1996 at the local elections had the Liberal Democrats win every seat except one in the constituent. The only seat they failed to win they did not stand in. in 1997 Tim Loughton Conservative was elected to parliament. Using the list above and the way it has been compiled is Original research and is not verifiable both of which are not allowed on Wikipedia. Also the only parties with target seasts listed are those with seats in the House of Commons, a clear and simple rules which is easily verifiable and not original research. Sport and politics (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I note MassiveBagOf... has been blocked as another Sheffno1gunner sock (as I kinda suspected). Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I can see the logic of wanting to include UKIP target seats as it does seem that they are going to have a significant impact on the election. Quite what impact that will be is yet to be seen but they will clearly target as all parties do. However, I think you may have jumped the gun on this one. To get a clearer picture, we need to wait until we have the results of the 2014 local elections. Even UKIP themselves say they have yet to finalise their target seats and that they are looking to build up more "hot spots" in the local elections, so that they know where best to target.

Once we have the election results we will all(UKIP, the media, Wiki etc) be in a position to identify their target seats. This then presents us with a problem; the target seats already in the article for other parties are based on the previous election and there are no additional sources. Clearly we can't do this for UKIP on that basis but nor can we credibly ignore the fact that they will be targeting seats and that they will be a significant player in this election, something this article does appear to do until you scroll down to the Opinion Polling Section and the coverage of the public debate about the TV debates.

I just want to restate that I am NOT in favour of considering adding UKIP target seats until after the May local elections, largely because no-one can know what most of them will be. That said I do think it is something we need to look at incorporating into the article after May. Owl In The House (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently there is a bright line rule for inclusion, as far as I am aware for consensus on this issue. If a party has representation in the House of Commons then that party has at least one target seat added. If a party has not got any representation in the house of commons it has no target seats listed as such UKIP have no target seats listed where as Green, Respect and Alliance all do. I think this is a good rule as it is not open to opinion and interpretation and sets a sensible rule for inclusion and exclusion on this page. Sport and politics (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That "rule" doesn't seem at all familiar, indeed if we look at the details of the target seats of the parties you just mentioned, they would be included whether your "rule" existed or not. In the case of Respect Party, their target seat is Birmingham Hall Green where their then leader Salma Yaqoob came a very strong second place with over 25% of the vote. In the case of the Greens, their target seat is Norwich South where their then Deputy Leader Adrian Ramsay gained 15% of the vote, the party's second best result in 2010: The seat is now practically a 4 way marginal. In both of these cases, I would find it very odd if they were not included, due to some magical "rule", even if the Greens and Respect didn't currently hold any seats. It is also worth noting that Respect didn't actually win any seats at the General Election, so even if this "rule" did exist, it does seem that it has been stretched.

Again I just want to restate that I am Not in favour of adding UKIP target seats for the time being, we need to wait until after the local elections. Our sole judgement for inclusion of target seats can not simply be left to reflecting on the previous election result, we need to consider the situation as a whole. It is also worth noting that UKIP only gained 3% of the vote in 2010 but now their polling figures are no longer included in with "Others" in opinion polling, no matter what polling company or newspaper you refer to, they always include UKIP in their headline figure; Similarly on the polling page for the next election UKIP have their own column, this provides another example of how the previous election result is not the only thing we need to consider when laying out our articles, if that was the case UKIP would still be included in "others".

I am doing my best to assume good faith here but a desire to set rigid "rules" that prevent accurate coverage of the election does seem somewhat suspect. I am not even saying lets include UKIP's target seats or indeed agreeing with the list above, indeed I think there is insufficient evidence to suggest that some of the seats above would be realistic target seats for UKIP. What I am saying is that we should keep an open mind and not consider adding UKIP's target seats until they have been properly established. Owl In The House (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sport and politics is right that the current listing reflects past consensus around "a bright line rule for inclusion", that being having a seat in the Commons. That's why the UUP are omitted despite being closer on past results than some parties that are listed.

However, I am also sympathetic to Owl's position. Ultimately, this should be determined by what reliable sources report rather than by a local consensus rule. If multiple reliable sources are talking about UKIP targets, then so should we. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This would, of course, all be much easier to sort out if it wasn't for the legacy of damage and distrust left by Sheffno1gunner! Bondegezou (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Bondegezou. The key point here, is its about reliable sources, I think there is little doubt that such sources will emerge but I must repeat: Not until after the local elections. There are likely to be various reliable sources that disagree on what the target seats are, or indeed how many there are. That will be a discussion for when the time comes. Yes, there does seem to be a legacy of distrust and damage, left by various former and current editors, which is why it is important we stick to facts and reliable sources. Owl In The House (talk) 16:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly the local elections have much psephological and media significance, but I don't see why you are so insistent on them being some firm cut-off. If we get a bunch of reliable sources sensibly talking about meaningful UKIP target seats before then, I say we include them (in some form). We probably won't... but, indeed, I wouldn't expect such until much closer to the next General Election. I just don't see the next set of locals as some key cut-off date. Bondegezou (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Its not so much a cut off point, its more that after those elections is when a proper assessment can be made. Hypothetically, a partial assessment of target seats can be made, indeed there are reliable sources already in existence. However there is a set number of 27 target seats for Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrats on this page already. No one can be in a position to identify UKIP's top 27 target seats, there are a handful of obvious ones (Eastleigh springs to mind) but there simply has not been an electoral test in every part of the UK yet, since UKIP came to prominence. Therefore there is no way of assessing UKIP's most likely target seats until after that electoral test. I hope that that clarifies things. It's not that target seats can't be identified, it's a case of not being able to have a comprehensive list and properly rank them. Owl In The House (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. Fair enough. But basically it's up to reliable sources to report on what UKIP decides or make those assessments, so -- for me; others have other views -- I think we behave reactively and see what appears or doesn't. Bondegezou (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, so here's a good example of a reliable source (BBC) discussing marginal seats and targets seats at the next election: [5]. It lists the 7 top targets (based on 2010 result) for Labour, Conservative and LibDem only, but the interactive map includes targets for other parties (well, Plaid Cymru in Ynys Mon). Bondegezou (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

(And Birmingham Hall Green for Respect.) Bondegezou (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

But not Green Norwich South of course. There's also no SNP targets I notice.

We must not solely rely on reliable sources that obsess over the previous election result, if and when reliable sources emerge that are perhaps a bit more insightful they should also be taken into account.

As far as UKIP's inclusion goes, this extra source changes nothing, there are currently not enough grounds for inclusion as the other reliable sources out there dont look accross all of the UK's constituencies, the existing reliable sources only give snapshots...not enough, That said, nor is this source grounds for disclusion. Lets wait and see what reliable sources produce in specific regard to UKIP targets after the local elections in May. Owl In The House (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Links

p>> Merkel addresses Britain's parliament(Lihaas (talk) 12:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).

Inappropriate article title

"Next United Kingdom general election" is not an appropriate title; it will go out of date, and need complete rewriting every 5 years. The title of the article, never mind the content, violates wp:dated. It would seem far more appropriate for the actual title to be 2015 UK General Election; if "Next United Kingdom general election" is to be kept (I would drop it), it can be periodically redirected to the appropriately-titled article (2015, 202, etc.). Pol098 (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a throwback from when the UK general election date was decided by the prime minister rather than by statute. This meant that there was no future date to use for the article title. That no longer being the case I would agree with you that it could be moved to 2015 United Kingdom General Election with a redirect created for Next United Kingdom General Election to point to the 'current next election'. In the event that an election is held early (for any reason) the article 2015 United Kingdom General Election could be renamed. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It is an appropriate title. An early election can still be called (through a vote of no confidence). Next year, the community will decide when the article should be moved to the 2015 article title... doktorb _words^deeds 19:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

• The initial complaint is just wrong. There is absolutely no WP:DATED problem. The rule has always been, for this and articles for elections not based on a hard, fixed term, that the article moves when the election is called (or sometimes announced) or when it becomes impossible for the election to be held in any but one calendar year. From that point until shortly after the election, Next United Kingdom general election is a redirect to United Kingdom general election, 20XX. Very shortly after the election, Next becomes an article for the next election thereafter. (E.g. the current incarnation of Next United Kingdom general election was written shortly after the May 2010 election.)

 There may be a case for using year-based election naming from the start at some point in the future. Because this is a minority parliament, the possibility of a vote of no confidence is more real than it would be in a majority parliament. Even in a majority parliament, there is the possibility of a governing party abstaining or voting yes on a motion of no confidence, so even in a majority government, we'd have to discuss it. Experience with articles for other countries is mixed: the Australian articles for fixed-term states use the year, but Germany (which has some history of manipulated non-confidence dissolutions) uses Next German federal election.

Clearly, the page can't be named 'United Kingdom general election, 2015' because we'd have to be definitively sure that it is to take place in 2015. Maybe the change can be made in late December this year.

However, it'd be wrong to say that I am wholly convinced by the current title. Back in the early days of this article, when it existed before the 2010 election, it was known as the '55th United Kingdom general election'. In some ways, I prefer that title. It has the definition that some users seem to think is currently lacking. I did actually make a comment about this before the article was renamed with "next". That went unnoticed, however.

It may not be the perfect idea, but I think that it could have advantages. RedvBlue 22:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the correct alternative title is United Kingdom general election, 2015 as per WP:NC-GAL. Number 57 23:40, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't have to know that it is going to 'definately' take place in 2015, just that all of the reliable sources state give that the date of the next election. At the moment that is the legally defined date of the next election. we cannot make allowances for circumstances which we have no control over just accept what the sources are saying. An example, in 2001 the Ryder Cup golf tournament was due to take place in the September but due to the attacks on the world trade center it didn't happen until 2002. It was going to happen in 2001, and every subsequent tournament was to take place in an odd numbered year, but circumstances delayed it. Now until the events of 11th September 2001 the article would be the 2001 Ryder Cup as that was the defined date but following that date it would be renamed 2002 Ryder Cup. The same logic applies in this instance. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 10:15, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

---

I'd clarify that the point of my original comment was that "next" ("recent", "soon", "now", ...) in an article goes out of date and makes it read very oddly. A fairly prominent article such as this is less likely to remain uncorrected, but I've found plenty of articles referring (in 2013) to "the forthcoming visit [in 2008]", etc. An actual example: "The 2008 Trofeo Federale is currently an ongoing four-team tournament running from September 1 to September 16, 2008" was the first sentence of an article in November 2013. The WP:DATED rules used to give a rule of thumb that an article should still read sensibly in 5 years. "Next" in an article title is particularly visible. Pol098 (talk) 10:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd very much agree with this point, although I would say that there are some differences between article titles and article content. However, I do have the same sentiment. Imagine a user on some other talkspace saying something like: "I think that there should be a To-do list of action to be taken in the Next United Kingdom general election article." If the editors for that talkspace were exceptionally slow, and they only got around to taking such action five years after that comment was made, then they could end up making a whole range of inappropriate edits in good faith, seeing as they were actually reading comments about a completely different article! Alright, I accept that this example is a little extreme, but it still bothers me that this is theoretically possible.

Also, as has been touched upon, I'm not sure that having "next" in the title is encyclopaedic.

With regards to including "2015" in the title now, I'm afraid that I can't accept that. Yes, there may be legislation in place saying that it is to be held in 2015, but there is also legislation in place saying that it can be held earlier than that. This is not the same as the sporting example.

Another point to address is the one about naming conventions. Would it be better to have the year first in the title? For example, I think that most people talk about the "2010 election" rather than the "election, 2010".

Overall, the current title bothers me a bit, as I say. I think that '55th United Kingdom general election' solves a lot of these problems, but it's not perfect. RedvBlue 12:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with the current title and much prefer it to "55th..." (a term practically never used by RSs). There are lots of Wikipedia election articles called "Next Italian...", "Next somewhere election" and so on. Let's not make unilateral changes here without discussion on the international elections project pages. In November 2014, we can change the name to "United Kingdom general election, 2015", which will avoid some of the problems feared above. Bondegezou (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

The current title is entirely appropriate, indeed this was the name of the article for the 2010 election before the date was known. The articles name should remain unchanged until at least 1st January 2015 because we will not know for sure whether the election will be in 2015 or not. I am aware of the fixed term Parliament Act but it still allows for the possibility of an early election if the Government collapses. While this isn't likely it is indeed possible for this to happen. So I would be in favour of changing the Article's name (if enough others were in favour) when we actually get to 2015. Indeed for the future this seems a good rule of thumb for future election articles; it's consistent with how we've always done it and doesn't rely on things we are not certain of. Owl In The House (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Election rules mean we will know the election hasn't to be in 2015 before 1 Jan 2015. We'll know by some time in November. Bondegezou (talk) 23:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are right about that. There will come a point whereby the election will have to take place in 2015, even if the Government collapses, some time in November sounds about right to me. SHall we just change it at the end of November or can you be bothered to work out the exact date. Indeed does it matter all that much, provided we don't make the name change too early. Owl In The House (talk) 19:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)