Talk:List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2024–present)

What should be included in notes?

The notes section is getting quite crowded. What should be included? Should we include former minor ministerial offices, select committee chairmanships, and former constituencies the MPs sat for? These things are included now; I'm not sure that this article is the place for them.

I'd propose that the only things to be included are the span of time of previous service (i.e. "Previously served 1983–97"), major government or parliamentary posts held (i.e. Chancellor of the Exchequer, former Home Secretary, Leader/former Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker and his deputies), major party positions held (i.e. Leader of the SDLP, former Leader of the Labour Party), and other elements related to seniority (Oldest MP elected at the 2024 election, Father/Mother of the House, by-elections elected in). We should do away with minor cabinet and most shadow cabinet positions held (i.e. Secretary of State for International Development, Former Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office), and all select committee chairmanships. Adding former constituencies is also new to this years list; not sure why they're being added.

Thoughts? I just don't want to see this list be bogged down with things not related to seniority, unless they are truly exceptional things. schetm (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Broadly agree with all of this. Just thought I'd contribute, as I was the one who was editing and adding former constituencies. The reason was that I remembered this used to be on these pages (I helped to compile the 2019 and 2017 seniority pages after the last elections) for those MPs who had continuous service, but represented two distinct places during that continuous service. I did notice partway through that this was no longer the case, but still added the information for MPs who are listed in the MPs changing constituency section. I would still argue this is relevant for inclusion, as it provides context that whilst e.g. Stuart Andrew currently represents Daventry and has been an MP since 2010, he has not continuously represented that area since 2010. This should only be relevant information for MPs who have moved constituency during their continuous service, not for those who represent a constituency with a different name because of boundary changes.

To confirm, although I think it's relevant information to their seniority, I'm not hugely set on needing to include this, mainly thought I would just explain my reasoning for adding it. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Duplicate article, both using this talk page

List of United Kingdom MPs by seniority (2024–present) and List_of_United_Kingdom_MPs_by_seniority_(2024-present) both exist. Weirdly the talk page of the latter redirects her, but the page itself obviously doesn't as there are two pages. I believe the long dash is both following WP:MOS and more detailed. Banak (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve reverted the duplicate back to a redirect to this article. --Finngall ^talk 22:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete list

There are 14 members missing from the list - 4 from Reform, 3 Independents, 1 SNP, and I can’t work out who else is missing? Hasn’t everyone been sworn in yet? Seems odd to leave 14 out. 92.20.3.137 (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Dates of Birth?

I'm not sure whether I'm keen on the idea of including dates of birth as its own column in the table. This hasn't been done previously and is not strictly relevent to the issue of seniority. SPMoore44 (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, in that it does seem to crowd the list a bit much. However, age, while not being an element of parliamentary seniority, is an element of general seniority, and I'm not sure of any better place for a sortable list of MPs by date of birth. schetm (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why DoBs were added, but I would note that most lists of parliamentarians include DoBs and that they were actually included in the seniority list for 2019-24 until someone decided to remove them, so it had in fact been done previously. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Contradictory, or ambiguous?

The article states: When a member has had broken service, that does not affect their seniority (for the purpose of qualifying as the Father of the House) which is based on the latest period of continuous service.

By my reading, Chope, currently listed at 30 in the table, should therefore be listed somewhere in the top 4, among those elected in 1983. So is the ruling being misapplied?

Or is it that the situation is poorly described? Saying that something does not affect seniority could mean that either the time out of parliament, or that the time served prior to absence, is neglected; ambiguous phrasing is not suited to encyclopaedic purpose.

If 30th is Chope's true position, then I would suggest "Seniority is based on the current period of continuous service: no allowance is made for time in parliament before a break in parliamentary career." 'Current' rather than 'latest', otherwise Bottomley would still be top of the list (if we restrict ourselves to those who are alive)

Of course, technically there is no prolonged continuous service, as even an MP successfully defending their seat is not a member between dissolution and election. Let's hope nobody is that pedantic. Kevin McE (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)