Talk:Barrow and Furness (UK Parliament constituency)

Infobox map caption

I note that the infobox property map_year is set to 2007, which formats as "Boundary of Barrow and Furness in Cumbria for the 2007 general election." The name of the map suggests it indeed dates from 2007, but presumably the boundary changes only came into effect from 2010 (as the article text suggests)?--GrounderUK (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Barrow and Furness (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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Unclear/contentious sentence

I am not sure that the meaning of the sentence "Conservative, Simon Fell, took the seat in 2019 with a slightly greater margin than the pre-leftward shift in the Labour Party win of 2010" is clear and I am also concerned that it could be seen as being debatable. I assume that what is being said is that the Conservative majority in 2019 was slightly greater (both in terms of percentage of vote share and number of votes) than Labour's was in 2010, but if so I think this could be expressed more clearly. In terms of leftward-shift in the Labour Party, this would suggest that there was a dramatic change at some point between the 2010 and 2015 elections. While it could be argued that there was a change in direction towards the left after Ed Miliband became leader in 2010, others would argue that the more marked shift came after the 2015 election under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. It could also be argued that Labour under Gordon Brown after 2007 was already more to the left than the party had been under Tony Blair 1994-2007. Whatever the case, I think a statement like this needs a source to back it up. I wonder if it would be easier to simply say "Conservative, Simon Fell, took the seat in 2019 with a slightly greater margin than John Woodcock had when he first won the seat for Labour in 2010."? Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My memory is that an editor with a run-on sentence style of typing went across a number of constituency articles with their idiosyncratic style and this was one of them. I'd happily allow any editing to clear it up. Indeed I'm concerned that a lot of commentary has been left on articles like this which shouldn't be permitted. doktorb _words^deeds 07:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - I have gone ahead and made the change. Dunarc (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

POV and Referencing

Much of the first substantive para, which lacks any proper references, and has strong POV flavours This reliance on the industry aligns many of its columnists and in its community with strong nuclear deterrents... (what are "its columnists" - not of the Fifth variety, one trusts?) and Local media attributed this to widespread fears of job losses...

Even more in need of explanation/reference is the cryptic statement The election was declared void on petition, causing a by-election after the 1885 election. Davidships (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Order of election results history

The election results are listed differently to most other constituencies, where the most recent election is at the top. Is this deliberate or should it be changed? Embeog (talk) 21:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reordered this newest to oldest. There are only two changes, so it can be reverted if required. Nome3000 (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)