Talk:2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election

Which party?

There is no word from the Conservatives that Davis is standing for them. Please don't quote them unless you have source. --91.106.28.24 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you, please stop adding nonsense, even if you are correct that there is no official word (I myself don't have a clue). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

David Cameron, as leader of the Conservatives, has said that they are backing Davis. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drop a quotable source in, and Bob's your uncle.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Backing him? No. They're going to "support" him, but not back him financially. So, so far we have nothing that says he'll be the Conservative candidate. We need to wait to officially hear from the Conservative Central Office or the man himself. Until then, we're in danger of just repeating the press's guesswork. There's no deadline folks, so we can wait. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a highly unusual by-election. We'll have to be on our toes here, peeps. Too many "as live" updates and we'll turn this page into a blog. Too few and we'll be caught napping. More now than ever, we MUST have sources, and I know it's tempting, but Conservative Home is not a reliable source! We've got, what, a month to go, already this article has been edited about 500 times I'd guess! We are all pretty good editors, we know the score, but it's about control, especially the anonytors who I suspect will flood in nearer polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How a campaign is funded is an internal matter, so I don't see much reason for Redvers to use it as evidence against the clear support being given to Davis by the Conservative party, as stated by David Camerson no less. It seems POV to go out of the way to interpret that as not meaning that he's the Tory candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reliable source for the OMRLP candidate. Any chance someone could put the results box for Mad Cow-Girl back? You can argue about whether Davis is a tory or not in your own time.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth having the full election box up for just one candidate. Hold your horses till we have more candidates good to go doktorb _words^deeds 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the box is hard-coded to have a party against the candidate's name. If there's no party, the box breaks in a very ugly way. Until there's an official announcement that he's the Conservative candidate or is standing as an Independent or whatever, we can't put a box up. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.constituency.page&obj_id=1847 - I'm going to put the box back up Sotonchris (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←I took your addition of Ken Mitchell out. The source provided was his blog (this is not reliable) - we need actual, reliable, verifiable sources, not people's jokey blogs. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have known better! I've tidied up the candidates section into sub-headings as it was a bit jumbled and lacked any type of real structure. Sotonchris (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable per se (UKPolling seems to be a generally accepted site on the whole), so if this guy is standing, we may have to wait for the candidates to be officially confirmed by the Returning Officer. doktorb _words^deeds 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper supported candidates

I've never come across this before. The Sun has already launched a blistering attack on Davis "evidence of a deranged mind" [1] - doesn't this breach election rules ? Are there any rules ? Who enforces them ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of rules, and sometimes they get enforced. However I don't believe David Davis has actually resigned yet. Following this, a writ will be moved by the Conservatives in parliament, and after a certain period for candidates to formally become nominated, then the election will be in progress. It may happen quite quickly, or it may take longer. But it hasn't happened just yet!--91.106.28.24 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So who enforces them ? Looking at the Electoral Commission website, it doesn't appear to be them, hence the question. If I heard correctly the BBC 6 o'clock news has said that Davis officialy resigns on Wednesday. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Returning Officer for the relevant council will have something to say if, during the official election period, something is said against the RotPA or necessary legislation. As for his resignation date, that should be between Monday and Wednesday, with a polling day of 10th July. doktorb _words^deeds 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's RotPA and the relevent legislation ? I'm not being difficult, I just want to read it for myself, as this move appears to be a step change in the politicisation of the media. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Representation of the People Act 2000 available in paintful detail at the OPSI website. Although my knowledge of the Act is based on the 1983 Act, I'd be pretty sure that it has not, so far, been breached. I offer no judgement on whether that's a good or a bad thing. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any good lawyer at the Sun should (cough) be ready to stop Kelvin writing too much when the election starts proper (until the writ is moved, Kelvin and the Sun can pretty much write what they want). When the gun is fired, that's the difficult time, indeed I suspect he may not be able to write an article at all when he is a candidate but that could be hypercaution on my part. The ARO at East Yorkshire should be ready to act on anything if it's reported to him doktorb _words^deeds 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the detail of how the Act affects newspapers, but I do know that he wouldn't be permitted to present a programme on broadcast media, nor to receive coverage from them more favourable than other candidates - indeed, as he has no track record of support in the constituency and is not representing a major party, he could be left out of debates and the like. But this isn't very relevant, as that's enforced by Ofcom anyhow. Warofdreams talk 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's actually quite readable, although the 2000 Act was just an update, the major change was the 1983 Act [2] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←It's one of the few things enforced by OfGums that you can go to prison for. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelvin MacKenzie not a credible candidate

Kelvin MacKenzie has said that he would get Rupert Murdoch to fund his campaign, but I read via that BBC[3] that this would be a violation of electoral law as Murdoch is a foreigner. Shouldn't we take out any references to Mackenzie as he's hardly a credible candidate? (I'm not saying he won't stand, but until he actually explains how he is to fund his campaign from a legal source he's not even a starter).--91.106.28.24 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He has also stated that he is unable to fund himself, according to the Daily Record [4], so this potentially puts him further out of the picture. However I don't think that this enough to cause MacKenzie to be removed because it is probably that Murdock will find a way to fund him. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the information. It's Wikipedia compliant sourced and notable. Even if he doesn't stand, I'd argue that the fact that he was asked to by Rupert Murdoch is a notable enough event in UK politics to warrant a mention. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality on Nature of By-Election

In order to remain a neutral voice on this issue we need to be clear that this is a standard by-election and that David Davis's wish to use it to solely conduct a debate on the 42 day detention will not necessarily be fullfilled to his satisfaction. We probably also need to approach the issue that it is expected to be a farce or a pantomime by many political commentators and politicans. However I don't think that I can get the phrasing right on this, so I throw this open to the wider community of editors. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's a standard by-election. It's a matter for individual candidates whether they fight it on certain issues and offer no opinion others or whether they choose to contest it at all. It's also a matter for the electorate, if they vote on a candidates personal view or if they vote for him as a representitive of party views. If commentators/journalists are using such language as pantomime, then full disclosure of political affiliations needs to be made for balance, as it could just be spin to make someone look good or bad. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there's nothing special about the by election as such. The nature of Davis' resignation is unusual, but not unique. Davis is using an unusual campaign tactic too, by seeking to discourage some parties from standing, yet to encourage others. There's no need for Wikipedia's editors to treat this by election any differently. John, not sure what you mean about full disclosure of political affiliations - are you referring to editors here?--91.106.28.24 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis's resignation is unique. If you believe not, please cite an analogue... RodCrosby (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take a look at Northern_Ireland_by-elections,_1986 when three different Unionist parties forced by elections in 15 seats.--91.106.17.78 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

they were united in their strategy RodCrosby (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's very similar to the Bow and Bromley by-election, 1912 on which we should create an article. George Lansbury resigned to recontest his seat on a platform of votes for women, a policy strongly opposed by Asquith's Liberal government and supported by Labour, although not with universal enthusiasm. He lost. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

as often in politics, there was more to that than met the eye.A Life on the Left : George Lansbury (1859—1940) RodCrosby (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I've now created the article - please add any further details you have. Warofdreams talk 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that a simple "See also" to Bow and Bromley is the most helpful for the reader: a sentence somewhere explaining the connection would be better. PamD (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be a section in this article referring to Tatton (UK Parliament constituency) in United Kingdom general election, 1997, and any other UK parliamentary elections (by- or general) where one or more major parties declined to put forward a candidate? Not sure quite how it would be worded, or indeed whether there are others apart from Tatton! But it's relevant for the similarity, and would help the reader who's thinking "Wasn't there another one recently where a couple of main parties agreed not to stand, a bit like this one ... where was it?". Or create an article/list which would include this, with a clear title, and make a "See also" link. PamD (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments on my suggestion above, so have added new section on analagous elections (WikiDictionary definition: "bearing some resemblance or proportion"; seems the best word to encompass the above pair). I'm sure there are other examples which could usefully be added. PamD (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just seen the other analogue quoted above... will add. PamD (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a constructive suggestion. Establishing precident like this makes sense.

I would like to thank people for considering the neutrality of this page in a balanced way, including maintaining the link to only confirmed, noteable candidate with much experience in UK politics. You are restoring my faith in the Wikipedia although I remain too intimidated to directly contribute to this and other pages. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to echo the sentiment here, I have worked on this article and have been very impressed by the lack of any significant vandalism and constant attention to detail. Has there ever been a Wiki article with so many citations?! :). This is Wiki at its best, and I hope this will continue right up to polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gemma Garrett and others

Gemma Garrett has also announced plans to contest this by-election so I've added a mention. It needs a reference though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the site is used for candidate lists for the next election I have used UKPolling but I know that may result in my wrists being slapped. However I have found a Sunday Times reference for one of the candidates so it's not all bad, heh. There is the Grimsby Times reference for the Generalist Party, which I have used.

I have emailed the England First Party to ask if they are willing to stand; any affirmative email I will post here to check if it's okay to use as a source. Any idea on the Greens? doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Green Party is standing

Ok, I've just had a revision undone - fair enough - my source is weak by wiki standards as it relies on the fact that the announcement has only just been made and therefore doesn't have the best sources available yet. (also I needed to tidy it as i used the wrong markup)

The Green Party is standing a candidate, Shan Oakes (info http://www.y-hgreenparty.org.uk/shan.htm) in this election. "Although David Davis is correct on the issue of 42 days, we note his appalling record on many other areas of policy including LGBT issues, climate change and the human rights act. With no Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates the Green Party would be the only credible left of centre challenger in this by-election and we believe it is absolutely right that voters be given a credible alternative to David Davis". Will provide good source asap JimJay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.102.176 (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have re-added in a form that will hopefully be acceptable. - Galloglass 15:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! JimJay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.102.176 (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Conservatives have not selected a candidate yet

I know we have two references that appear to support the idea that Davis is the official Conservative candidate, but I believe these are mistaken. I heard Dominic Grieve, the newly appointed Shadow Home Secretary, say on this evening's edition of Any Questions on Radio 4 that he was going to speak in favour of Davis on Monday (23rd June) at a selection meeting. The implication is clear that the local Tory party has not yet given their assent to either standing a candidate, or selecting Davis for that role. Until he is selected, I don't think we can accurately refer to him as the Conservative candidate.--91.104.20.23 (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This calls him candidate, but I too heard the Any Questions: I think it was the "Adoption meeting" that Grieve mentioned. Davis may have been "selected" but not "adopted" as candidate - I can't quite remember the distinction, but I remember doing them both for our man in the last General Election! Is he perhaps the PPC at present? PamD (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the link says he is "Your Conservative Representative" which is for sure the one thing he isn't at the moment. Remember he's just resigned. I'm afraid this source is clearly out of date.--91.104.20.23 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Update Parties list

The Socialist Equality Party are standing a candidate, see WSWS.org. http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/elec-j23.shtml, I'm not sure how to update the public article so I'll leave it to someone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.254.251 (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Resignation

Of course technically it wasn't a resignation as MPs technically can't resign their seats, officially he left his seat after accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, an office of nominal profit for the Crown.--Lord of the Isles (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

David Davis for Freedom campaign (Suggested Merge)

I think the David Davis for Freedom campaign article should be merged into this one. So far the only thing that campaign has done is trigger this by-election, so it should be included in this article, not made a separate one. Caerwine Caer’s whines 18:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. On article size grounds, and on the fact the campaign is still a specific seperate entity, despite seemingly only having this election as its major focus. Mergeing would overly unbalance the by-election article away from the neutral point of view. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment Article size? Once one weeds out the duplicated content, it would hardly be overlarge. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I see barely 20 lines of duplication in this article, out of the 68 lines in the campaign article. It would represent a very large addition to this article, which due to heading white space does not have that much actual text to it. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - per the AFD discussion. DWaterson (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - already discussed in the AFD that it would make article unbalanced. Keith D (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - per the AfD discussion. The AfD discussion resolved to keep the article on procedural grounds that AfD is not a forum for merge discussions. Whether or not the article should be merged was never properly debated. The "David Davis for Freedom campaign" should be merged with this one as it is little more than a soap box for one of the campaigns in this by-election. If there is a problem of article size then the article should be rewritten as Campaigns of the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 or similar titled article. We cannot give undue weight to one campaign without breaking WP:NPOV. If the David Davis campaign is still around and active 6 months after the end of the by-election then it may become worthy of its own article. Road Wizard (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't disagree more, over-loading this article with a large section dedicated purely to David Davis is what would violate article neutrality. As has been said before, even though he started this campaign, this is still just a regular by-election. There is a clear dividing line between the justification for the two articles. I honestly don't see how the campaign article is a violation of WP:SOAPBOX, except maybe for the title, which can be changed if anyone has any better suggestions. It is written as a neutral article unless you want to disagree on that point, therefore, it is not a violation of wp:soapbox. Copy pasting its contents here wouldn't change anything in that respect. MickMacNee (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the article's premise is non-neutral and unbalanced. We have an entire article focused on a single candidate's election campaign when it is doubtful that the other candidates' campaigns will be able to support their own campaign articles. To restore neutrality we have two options that I can see:

1. Merge the Davis article into the by-election article to restore a level of balance between the campaigns.

2. Rename/rescope the article so that it includes details of all the published campaigns of this by-election.

While I personally agree with Davis's stance on the 42 day issue I can't see how Wikipedia's policies can support favouring one campaign over the others. Road Wizard (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the premise of neutrality on wikipedia. It is not the case that Wikipedia aims to level the playing field by giving more coverage to other campaigns, when those other campaigns are by definition, barely notable. The aim is to document the notable campaign in a neutral way. The alternate campaigns can be included, but wikipedia does not promote fringe opinions by giving them undue weight. MickMacNee (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I understand the policy on neutrality perfectly. The problem is that I see the presentation of a single candidate's campaign in isolation from the rest as giving undue weight to that campaign. Road Wizard (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing for evening up coverage on wikipedia without consideration of the number/depth/breadth of sources. That is not neutrality. Would you suggest merging the 2008 Democrat and Republican presidential campaign pages with the third party campaigns page to achieve your interpretation of neutrality? I can't interpret your position as anything other than trying to even up a situation that is in reality uneven. Wikipedia reflects reality, not political correctness, this isn't the BBC election department, it is not obliged to give equal coverage in the way you seem to think it is, it is obliged to reflect the sources of notable subjects neutraly, it's as simple as that. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoever said anything about "evening up"? I am talking about balancing the article. The campaigns are uneven in notability so a true balance will result in the Davis campaign having prominence in the article and the other campaigns with reliable sources having about 1 paragraph. It really boils down to interpretation of Wikipedia's policies as I believe that they do not support an article for an individual candidate's campaign in a single by-election as it is giving undue weight to that campaign. Your interpretation of policy differs from mine and that is perfectly okay. The purpose of this discussion is to gather the different opinions of individual editors and form a consensus. Unless some other editors step in to add their views it looks like the consensus is going against me, which is entirely acceptable. I am always willing to stand by the judgement of consensus. Road Wizard (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment I'm surprised that people feel that a merge would unbalance the article. With the other two major parties declining to field a candidate, Davis' publicity stunt is the only issue of note in this campaign. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment That's the issue, though. Put one candidate's entire raison d'etre and we end up with a blog, not a balanced article. Hitherto, this article has been pretty much one damn fine example of Wiki at its best; it has been neutral (largely, and controlled), without much spam, and for once we have a candidate box with sources (and often I am not the best at showing restraint with this!). Were we to merge the articles together, we'd have quite a sprawl of one-sided material with a spattering of footnotes about Labour, LibDems, UKIP etc. The AfD seems to be on a kinfe-edge; I'd leave it at that for now, and return in 3 or 6 months. As a kind of comparison, imagine if the LibDem anti-Poll Tax position was added to Ribble Valley by-election, 1991. doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose David Davis for Freedom campaign is a soapbox WP:SOAP and as such should be deleted. It's a single politician's by election campaign and it's a disgrace that the previous AfD was closed in under 24 hours by a non-admin.--91.106.34.136 (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why are you opposing then? MickMacNee (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it's rubbish and should be deleted.--91.106.34.136 (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

So how does opposing a merge get the article deleted? MickMacNee (talk) 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - there is no reason, whatsoever, that I can see which would make the other article compliant with Wikipedia. The non-admin closure of the AFD less than 24 hours after it was opened was an abuse. If I could work out how to request a deletion review I'd do it - but the simplest thing would be for the other article to be savagely cut and merged either into this one or into the David Davis main article. B1atv (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It usually helps if you give an actual reason for your support. There is no separate compliance department in Wikipedia, simply asserting the article is 'non-compliant' is not going to help anyone understand what your support is based on. MickMacNee (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support Interesting issue. Merging makes sense. I would oppose deleting any content.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on size grounds and it also would make the election article rather unbalanced. --Blowdart | ^talk 19:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Note:Listed at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers for more input MickMacNee (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - this campaign is clearly intrinsically linked to the by-election, so it would make most sense to cover it in the same article. It seems to me the 'David Davis for freedom campaign' is not notable except insofar as it relates to Davis standing down to force a byelection; it has no notability in its own right, so ought to be covered here instead of a separate article. As for claims that it would 'unbalance the article', that seems like nonsense to me: the only attention this byelection has received from the media is in relation to Davis and his campaign, so it is obviously important enough to make up the majority of this article. Terraxos (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party...and all candidates generally

Why is there a section stating that the Libertarian Party are not standing? They have never stood in any election anywhere. It is like saying the "Earthlings Exiled to Mars" party isn't standing. If they had a history of contesting by elections, or indeed any election, or had a history in this seat it would be noteworthy. As they have not stood anywhere and have only been founded less than a year (and in that time acheived news coverage ONLY because they state tehir intention to stand in by elections; but never actually manage it); then there is no reason for their inclusion. B1atv (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree I put their decision not to stand in "Others" right at the start, using "Libertarianism in the United Kingdom" rather than the article name which I thought had been redirected following an AfD. The fact is, they have never stood anywhere, so they really should be back in the Others section. If no-one disagrees, I think we should be the WP:Bold and put them in "others". doktorb _words^deeds 18:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update Today is close of nominations day, so check East Riding of Yorkshire council website, or any news website, from 12 noon. There may well be party names or descriptions for which Wiki does not have articles - let us not start creating articles for non-notable candidates or parties (and you can help me form a policy on this here) until after the election if it's proven necessary. doktorb _words^deeds 05:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The council says they will be publishing the list of nominations "as soon as possible after 4pm".[5] There is not much need to check the news sources until then. Road Wizard (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

English Democrats

I put up the link to the Yorkshire English Democrats site, confirming that the English Democrats would be standing - and I know that the nomination has been accepted today

What moron has taken down this information ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.2.97.151 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm... the information is still there. It has just been moved from the "Not standing" section to the "Announced" section. ^_~ Road Wizard (talk) 21:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They're official

26 candidates listed on the council website! I haven't the stamina to add them, but have added the link to the pdf file. And updated United Kingdom by-election records as the previous record was 19 at Newbury! What a waste of trees, and what fun the counting staff are going to have with such long ballot papers to unfold and sort. PamD (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious whether David Icke is standing for a party which has got lost in the page-break of the pdf file, or is a "more independent than the independent" candidate with no affiliation. PamD (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll get started with adding them to the election box. Road Wizard (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is at least one party on the list that has no meta data. Has anyone heard of the Church of the Militant Elvis Party before? Anyway, I will list new parties as Independents for the moment so they don't break the election box. We can decide how to handle the meta data issue later. Road Wizard (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The Elvis lot have been registered with the Electoral Commission since 2001 - see their listing. Symbol is, weirdly, a 6-pointed star. Why? Mysterious! PamD (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

... and their accounts for 2007 are interesting reading - no activity, no members except the two officers, no finances except the leader paying the £50 registration fee out of his own pocket! But enough to be a legally constituted party. PamD (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My good god! Er....yeah Church of the Militant Elvis are a joke party, not sure if they are notable enough, although saying that my proposals suggest they are, heh, er....Anyway, TWENTY SIX??!?! doktorb _words^deeds 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And the Miss Great Britain Party got themselves registered on Monday. PamD (talk) 18:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh good. Er...I have tried to find George Hargreaves on Wiki, because as the leader of the Christian Party I know he's stood in elections here (Western Isles, the Birmingham by-election recently) but I cannot find him. He does not lead the Christian Peoples Alliance, but they did link with the Christian Party for the GLA elections this year. I wonder if we have an article on either him or his party, or if we should?

Hargreaves stood in Birmingham Hodge Hill by-election, 2004. The party is listed as Operation Christian Vote and that has a redlink to him as James George Hargreaves. PamD (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting)The Christian Party registered in 2004, with Hargreaves as leader and treasurer. PamD (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I bet it would be quite difficult to research who he is and the party (I know it has had at least two names) but there's a challenge, I think Wiki is missing something here. Shall we link his name anyway? doktorb _words^deeds 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hargreaves is also mentioned in the Scottish Christian Party and Christian Peoples Alliance articles. The BBC has some articles about his work with the SCP if anyone does want to start an article.[6] Road Wizard (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if I can find the time, heh, I will. Luckily he is not just a long time failed candidate, as leader of a party/numerous parties, he is notable enough for an article. doktorb _words^deeds 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

former Tory MP Walter Sweeney is also standing. He is a member of the "rightwing" Freedom Association RodCrosby (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

According to UKPolling, Hargreaves also wrote "So Macho"! Meanwhile, the Church of the Militant Elvis Party is indeed known to Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Church of the Militant Elvis Party. Warofdreams talk 23:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

... and see also this deletion review. PamD (talk) 06:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hargreaves got a writeup in the Telegraph in 2007 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1547603/So-Macho-composer-to-fight-gay-campaigner.html - might be notable? PamD (talk) 07:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Which Howitt?

Candidate named as Hugh H on ballot paper has been redirected to Hamish H, but the registration for the party at Electoral commission has Hamish as leader and Hugh as nominating officer - so they seem to be two different people. PamD (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have tried doing a little research but it looks like at least one journalist hasn't got their facts straight (but it isn't completely clear which one). The Hugh Howitt article states that a man named Hamish changed his name to Hugh Guy Fawkes Howitt. In support of that we have the BBC claiming that he is "Hugh Howitt known as Hamish",[7] but the Morning Advertiser disagrees by claiming Hamish "changed his name by deed poll to Hamish Guy Fawkes Howitt".[8] After much searching, the world of blogging came to the rescue with a claim that Hugh is Hamish's son.[9] Though the blog isn't a reliable source it does add weight to the Electoral Commission source.

In any case the name listed on the returning officer's list is Hamish so that is the one that should be used here. Road Wizard (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More independent than the independents

UK Polling Report lists David Icke as "No description", rather than Independent. Is there an election law geek out there who can clarify this status (I know we had one locally last local elections)? PamD (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Call and I will responsd! We had them in the Preston local elections too over the years. Basically the new registration of political parties regulations mean a candidate can call themselves one of three options. The name of a registered party, "independent" or its Welsh equivilant, or nothing at all, a blank space. Now I have official results books and files from the Electoral Commission which uses the term "no label" (and i use, on Wiki, no label in italics where I have had to), so if we are to acknowledge that David Icke is "more independent than the independents", then I suggest "no label". doktorb _words^deeds 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

David Icke's website claims he is standing "under the title 'Big Brother - The Big Picture'" however it is unclear whether this is the name of a party he has registered or just a campaign slogan. I tried to find out at the Electoral Commission website both yesterday and today, but it seems their party register section is down for maintenance this weekend. Road Wizard (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It could be that he is using that as a slogan rather than a party name, but yeah, keep that in check. My mind is suddenly taken to the Alliance For Change party, who use(d?) a different name with each candidate, we ain't got that fun and game here. If he is "no label", would anyone object to that being used in the results table? doktorb _words^deeds 11:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. The "no label" description is what the returning officer's list shows at the moment anyway (though that could be a typographical error). Road Wizard (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I won't be "too bold" and change it now :) but if no-one objects I'll do it later, unless someone beats me to it, natch. If the ARO has put no label on the declaration of candidates, then that is what it will be, the only issue is the status of the "Big Brother" label. doktorb _words^deeds 11:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The pdf list of nominated candidates had a blank space but at first I wasn't quite sure it wasn't a typo or lost in the page break- but looking further the party is listed on the same line as nominator, so that line is clearly not missing from Icke's listing, so he has indeed neither party nor "Independent". Thanks for clarification - have updated article (please improve it if you see fit). Is there a way to get a white, ie empty, coloured box for a "no label" candidate? PamD (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it is blank than "no label" it is. Now, on your last point, you've actually asked a question I was going to solve many moons ago but never got round to it. If I can find enough citations and sources, we COULD have a "no label" article, which could have an Election Box Metadata thingy for "no label" candidates. It would have to explain what the term means for the UK elections and such but would help with the colour blocks that you want. doktorb _words^deeds 12:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Electoral Commission website is back up and I can't find any party with the name "Big Brother". It appears to be just a campaign slogan. Road Wizard (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Did You Know ...

OK, that's two DYKs connected with this by-election so far (at least) (Miss Great Britain Party and George Hargreaves (politician)). Any more ideas out there? PamD (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

What about writing articles for the parties and candidates that don't have them yet? That's what I did with the Miss Great Britain Party. ISD (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shan Oakes and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Public Party. Articles about candidates and minor parties need to be well sourced to avoid being brought up at AfD soon after their creation. Road Wizard (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wise old hand needed for tidy-up

It's not suprising, considering the large number of candidates, but this article is now looking a little untidy and would benefit from a wise old hand at wikipedia editing to do a tidy-up. I have three areas where I think the article could do with tidying up.

Kelvin Mackenzie's non stand is very high up in the article; in the early days of the by-election that seemed reasonable as it was a significant news story about the election. News, however, moves on and from an encyclopedic point of view his intention to stand followed by his decision not to isn't that encyclopeic and perhaps he should be moved to the non-standing section.

The Candidates section is untidy - not least because candidates standing for a "party" - no matter how inconsequential the party - receive more prominence in this article than independent candidates who do not receive a bold sub section headline. Would it not be better for the candidates to be in alphabetical order (as per the ballot paper) with each name in bold so that people could identify them more easily?

David Davis for Freedom Campaign has been suggested should be merged into this article. The consensus agreed with that proposal and somebody needs to do that. Much of the personal content could be truncated and included under David Davis' heading in teh candidates section with the background content used elsewhere in the article to explain the background to it.

That's my two-penneth worth; I think it makes sense and I can't see it being contentious, but I'll let others decide. B1atv (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree about Kelvin M. On the candidate, I prefer the present order (provides an alternative to the candidate A-Z of the ballot paper listing), but see your point about less prominence. On the other hand, if we give the independents a bold heading each with their name, that gives them more prominence as individuals than the other candidates. On balance I'd rather stay with the way we've got it (well, I would say that, as I sorted that section out a few days ago!). We could bold each of the candidate names in the Independent section, to help indicate the A-Z order ... OK will do so right now. On the merge of the campaign, I see no consensus in the discussion, and for my money it would be better merged into the David Davis (British politician) article instead. PamD (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

McKenzie is not a regular party candidate, hence placing him as a non standing candidate makes no sense when compared to regualr parties such as labour. His initial move is directley related to the background cause of the by-election, hence its position in the background section. The headings are a minor issue, it looks odd, but 26 candidates is odd. Removing headings from a TOC in favour of bolded names, when we already have a ballot order table of candidate names, makes no sense. There is no consensus for the merge, that discussion was one of the weakest collection of merger proposal arguments I've ever seen on wikipedia. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither The Libertarian Party, the Generalist Party nor Ken Mitchell are regular party candidates either - yet this is the section they are in. Yes, McKenzie would have been a significant part of the story had he stood, but he didn't - and the window of opportunity in which he was being reported as considering standing was only small. So therefore it is not such a significant part of the story that it needs the significance that the article currently gives. I'm not suggesting it should be removed - simply placed at a more appropriate level. Kelvin McKenzie, considering standing, briefly, in a by-election is not a significant part of that by-election story unless he actually did. And he didn't. B1atv (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hadn't realised they were there. Removed them now as transient trivial mentions, so all is well. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Done!

We have all worked really hard on this, from the initial creation (was it me, I can't remember!), to the results It has been a sign of Wiki at its absolute best - well done to everyone involved. doktorb _words^deeds 04:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it was a little patchy towards the beginning to be honest but it came together towards the end. *changes turnout percentage to correct amount* 92.3.48.22 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Turnout reference

Can I suggest that we use the actual publication details for the turnout reference rather than the web link. The reason for this is that the site removes the news stories after a few months (6 months max) and the link will go dead, additionally the pages are not archived by the wayback machine. I have had the problem with other references from this and other thisisX sites. Keith D (talk) 11:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Good Article nominaiton?

Do you think this article is good enough to be put forward for "Good article" status, or do you think that it needs to be cleaned up first? ISD (talk) 15:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The results section needs expansion with text explaining the results and the coverage of them, and some lesser claims in the article still require sourcing. As the results were only announced today the article is likely to receive heavy editing in the next week. I would recommend putting this forward for GA after the article has had a chance to stabilise. Road Wizard (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that it's been over a week since the recommendation, do you think the article should put forward for GA now? ISD (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I think David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 should be merged into this article. Looking up the page, it seems this was discussed back in 2008, without consensus; I hope it will be possible to reach consensus on it now. We really don't need a separate article on the Davis campaign, when it could be perfectly easily covered as part of this article. Yes, this one is quite long, but even with the extra content it wouldn't become excessively so; besides, some of the content in that article duplicates information in this one, and other parts of it (like the 'timeline' and 'reaction' sections) go into a rather unnecessary amount of detail. Robofish (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

• Support merge.

86.41.81.168 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081110214850/http://bnp.org.uk:80/2008/06/david-davis-power-play/ to http://www.bnp.org.uk/2008/06/david-davis-power-play/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081012085850/http://www.driffieldtoday.co.uk:80/latest-york-and-humberside-news/Latest-byelection-contenders-revealed.4222454.jp to http://www.driffieldtoday.co.uk/latest-york-and-humberside-news/Latest-byelection-contenders-revealed.4222454.jp

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election/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.

By-election takes place on Thu 10 July hence current assessment Tom (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 17:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Merge

David Davis by-election campaign, 2008 should be merged into this article. (I note that this was previously discussed above back in 2008, but without consensus.) Of the dozens of by-election articles on Wikipedia, this is the only one with a separate article on the campaign; which is particularly absurd since it's a by-election that went uncontested by the major parties, so there was effectively no campaigning. I don't know how that article survived so long, but it's plainly unnecessary, and should be either merged into this one or deleted. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose Davis' campaign was unusual in that he tried to run it on a national level, but I would agree that a merge would seem sensible. Dunarc (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the contents of his campaign and the manner of his resignation as a Conservative MP and subsequently the resignation from a Shadow Great Office of State position is significant and the fact that his campaign was on such a national scale, I oppose the merge proposal. 31.51.20.163 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Closing, given the opposition uncontested over 5 months, and only weak support prior to that. Klbrain (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. 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/20080605004136/http://www.parliament.uk/faq/elections_faq_page.cfm to http://www.parliament.uk/faq/elections_faq_page.cfm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.eastriding.gov.uk/EasySiteWeb/GatewayLink.aspx?alId=36838
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.driffieldtoday.co.uk/latest-york-and-humberside-news/Latest-byelection-contenders-revealed.4222454.jp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)