Talk:Colne Valley (UK Parliament constituency)

Victor Grayson

Victor Grayson's political affiliations are a matter of some difficulty. He was an individual member of the Independent Labour Party but did not get ILP endorsement for the 1907 byelection. Perhaps on the "looking gift horses in the mouth" principle, they included him on their list of MPs when he was elected, but he did not receive the Labour Party whip unlike all other ILP MPs. Grayson was a highly disruptive MP in the chamber and perhaps it was no wonder.

When he fought for re-election in January 1910, the Colne Valley Socialist League (the local ILP branch to which Grayson belonged) did not apply for any endorsement, and when he fought Kennington in December 1910 he likewise was not endorsed by the ILP. F.W.S. Craig lists him as "Independent Labour" rather than ILP, and he is willing to give ILP candidates who did not receive Labour Party endorsement as ILP in some circumstances. Sam Blacketer 17:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Colne Valley (UK Parliament constituency)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates Complete missing election years Details of boundary commission report dates etc required Keith D 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Colne Valley (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101106204053/http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm to http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/electoral-figures/electoral-figures.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Problematic text in lead section

The statement "The seat has been won by three different parties' candidates by a marginal majority since the 1992 general election, the last occasion when the winning majority exceeded 10% of the votes cast" is problematic. Firstly only two parties have won the seat in the time period, the Conservatives and Labour - it last elected a Liberal MP in 1983. Secondly although the majorities in 1997, 2001 and 2010 were under 10% it is questionable that they could be considered marginal - indeed at the 2001 election the gap was just under 9.9%. I have there for amended the text, to "Since the 1964 general election, the only occasion when the winning candidate's majority exceeded 10% of the votes cast was in 1992, and three different parties have held the seat during this period. Since 1987 it has either been won, by the Conservative or Labour candidates." I think this is more accurate, but am happy to discuss further. Dunarc (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

1983 - technically not a Liberal hold

I think that there is a slight issue describing Colne Valley as a Liberal hold at the 1983 general election. Although it is true that Richard Wainwright was the sitting MP for Colne Valley, the 1983 seat had different boundaries to the seat that Wainwright had won at the previous election in 1979 (and earlier). The BBC/ITN survey of what the 1979 results would have been had the seats been fought on the 1983 boundaries predicted that Labour would have actually won the seat majority of 2,269 votes. (See for example The Times Guide to the House of Commons 1983 p. 279) I am aware at the time a number of these notional results were met with skepticism, but generally they are the only basis we have. Rather than call it a gain or a hold, I think it might be safer to describe it as a "Liberal win" (win is often used for seats on new boundaries rather than gain or hold, but would appreciate others input. However, I have made changes by adding in referenced text to explain the situation for now. I am happy to discuss this further if anybody has any objections. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

I have found BBC election coverage that supports this position[1]. Park3r (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)