Talk:1955 United Kingdom general election

File:UK Election Map 1955.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:UK Election Map 1955.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Split UUP & Unionist votes/seats from Conservative totals

User:Timrollpickering has reverted an edit by User:MrPenguin20 with the explanation "confuses more, parties were part of one Westminster whole". This same revert has been done on another similar article but not on a third. This now means that we have an inconsistency. Out of respect for the work done by MrPenguin20 on this subject, I feel that a discussion on this subject should take place, not least to avoid an edit war. When I first saw MrPenguin20's edits I wondered about the point made by Timrollpickering, however, I decided on balance not to revert. I'm not sure that the litmus test should be about how the different groups behaved in the subsequent parliament as implied by Timrollpickering. Given that this is an article about an election, the relevance is the 'label' on which they sought election. Regarding the possibility of confusion, there are perhaps ways that the information could be retained in a less confusing manner. An example of this can be seen here United Kingdom general election, 1931. I would add that the article contains a clear summary through the info box, which arguably allows the information in this table to carry more detail. Graemp (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Infobox images

The nonfree use rationale "for visual identification of the person in question" is obviously insufficient in any context outside a biography of a person who has died. Only free images may be used in the infobox of articles like this one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"for visual identification of the person in question" is a common form of wording used to justify contextual significance for a non-free image. In my view it sufficiently describes the purpose, however, if other editors feel this wording could be improved and want to change it, that is fine by me. "Only free images may be used in the infobox of articles" is not supported by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Graemp (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop distorting what I said. I said "infobox of articles like this one", not infoboxes generally. Your distortion and misquotation is dishonest and disruptive. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

In my view, this is nonsense: clearly these images, as per the guidelines, "significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Elections (at least British ones) are very much thought about at the time in terms of the competing leader's faces. If it were written down somewhere in a guideline specifically that election infoboxes are not sufficient reason for a picture, then that's one thing, because one has to recognise that community consensus overrides local consensus - but I would say that it is quite false to say that it is "obviously insufficient in any context outside a bibliography of a person who has died." Dionysodorus (talk) 14:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I just realised this is an old discussion: but I say this because various editors continue to repeatedly remove the images. Dionysodorus (talk) 14:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to update, the non-free use of File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg in this article was discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 March 30#File:Clement Davies c1955.jpg and the result was "keep in Clement Davies, remove all other instances." Questions about the close should be directed to the closing administrator per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)4

I should note, with apologies, that I didn't pick up on that at the time and was mistaken in reverting it. Clearly people shouldn't reinstate the images of Clement Davies or equally Jo Grimond, unless that discussion you link to is successfully challenged. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

No, sorry - that comment I just wrote is nonsense, since my comments above actually predate the discussion over the image. But the point is, yes, you're right. Dionysodorus (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Daily Mirror?

How relevant is the Daily Mirror endorsement in this general election, and indeed in the next one (1959)? Maybe a new section of paper endorsements should be opened up using data such as this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.200.244.118 (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Just found out that the Mirror was the largest selling daily tabloid in those times. Ignore the above comment, it should be kept in the lede, just like the Sun in mentioned in the 1992 and 1997 elections. 49.200.244.118 (talk) 11:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"unionist party with most Scottish seats"

I reverted the rewording given by Dunarc on the ground that, while I can see the appeal, surely it is incorrect? Surely "the last time they were the unionist party with most Scottish seats until.." was just before the 1959 election, unless there were by-elections during the 1955-59 parliament that reduced the Conservative score and increased the Labour one? There may have been such by-elections, but I don't know of them. Harfarhs (talk) 17:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair point Harfarhs. The flip actually came in 1958 when Labour gained Walter Elliot's seat. To be honest I am not actually sure the statement should be here at all, not least as at that point the Unionist Party (as the Scottish Conservatives were always known until 1965) were in alliance with the National Liberals and some MPs counted as Conservative were actually National Liberal - eg James Henderson-Stewart in East Fife (albeit with the support of local Conservatives) or Unionist & National Liberal. The concept of a 'unionist parties' in the 21st century sense was also far less defined at this time. I wonder if it would be better to say something along the lines of this was the last election the Conservative Party (and allied candidates) won more seats than Labour in Scotland until 2017? Dunarc (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for coming back. Given the tables in Elections in Scotland showing parliamentary seat totals, which seem to me clear, I see no reason to be worried about the definition of 'Conservative Party' for our purpose. For any re-writing of the paragraph, knowledge of the 1958 by-election would be useful (and thanks for contributing it), but I'm inclined to think your suggestion of mentioning the Conservative predominance specifically over Labour is perhaps the most useful approach if it is emphasised that those were and are the two main unionist parties. That way, I suspect the paragraph here might be simplified. Harfarhs (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - will have a think and see if there is a way that it can reworked to be more effective. Dunarc (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Scottish Unionists.

This article is eliding the Unionist Party (of Scotland) conflating it with the Conservative and Unionist Party (of England and Wales). This completely distorts the reality of Scottish politics of the tume. It looks like there is a modern Conservative conspiracy to cover up and deny the existence of the UP, and this article seems to encourage that. 2A02:C7C:1821:4600:E8E4:7653:3DC:F6D0 (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Partisan myth of great Conservative victory

I am reverting the partisan, anonymous edits from now-partially-blocked IP addresses evidently used for this purpose only. Please raise issues with the accurate reflection of Scottish political reality at the time to this Talk page before further edits of this kind. Conflicts that cannot be resolved here will be raised to arbitration. Blether (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The Scottish Unionist question

The Scottish Unionist Party were part of a larger national coalition, running candidates exclusively in Scotland between Conservative-Unionist merger in 1912 and their extinction as part of wider sweeping internal reforms in the mid-60s. While nominally independent of the broader Conservative Party in a way the National Liberals were not, the Unionists (in both Scotland and Northern Ireland, for that matter) nonetheless took the Conservative whip in the Commons, sat in Conservative Cabinets, campaigned for Conservative Government, and supplied two Conservative Prime Ministers from their ranks.

I can understand to some extent the emotional desire to distinguish the Unionist Party, especially with their 'high-water mark' of 1955. However, for the reasons listed in the prior paragraph, the Unionist Party does not need to be distinguished within the infobox- which seems to be the only place such a distinction is being made, I cannot help but note. However, I do think there is some value in listing the Unionists- alongside their other National Affiliates (again previously listed)- as separated-under banner in the results section. Think of this as akin to the Coalition in Australia- two-ish nominally independent parties, yes, but at the top are counted together and the results actually carry the breakdown of what the result looked like when pulled apart.BitterGiant (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Consensus before edits - Scottish Unionist Party

The Scottish Unionists were an independent party with a far greater UK-wide seat share and vote share in the subject election than the Liberal Party. The Unionists were unable to campaign under the Conservative banner in Scotland because it was too toxic. It is clearly material to the historical fact of this election in Scotland, even if paying Scotland any attention is anathema to English commentators. You cannot claim this election as any kind of 'Conservative victory' in Scotland. Did you read the article before you edited it? How did you miss this same narrative in the body text?

Please discuss any further changes on this issue here before changing the established article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blether (talk • contribs) 12:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

• Blether, please refer to the Scottish Unionist question discussion above for my general reasoning against the separation of the Unionist Party. And as a Scot myself, I would also ask kindly not to so snidely make assumptions on my attitude toward Scotland, or infer I am so ignorant as to not read the article in full before I reverted the infobox. But indeed, even if I were not a Scot, I would note WP:5P4, and that this is an article about an election that took place 67 years ago. I have offered what I feel is an equitable compromise on the matter, and am currently hashing out an example box in my Sandbox. Please refer to the above Talk discussion where I will post an example. BitterGiant (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
  • What do sources say? They all seem to overwhelmingly consider the Unionists as a partner to the Conservatives and show their aggregated totals ([1] [2] [3]). This is also what is done for all other UK election articles, of which 1955 has no specific reason for being treated differently. Different parties may run under the same national umbrella, that's actually quite common (take for example the Labour-Co-operative alliance, which lasts to this day and we don't show them separately). This does not pose a problem, really. Impru20^talk 13:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)