Talk:United Kingdom general election records

Untitled

Please try to follow the style of the by-elections page: UK by-election records RodCrosby 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

General election victors had not contested previous election

This heading is unclear - I think it means that the party of the victor did not stand in that seat. Is that right? Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is right. As you find the heading unclear, could you suggest an alternative? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made a suggested change Dupont Circle (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It should be obvious that we are talking about individual constituency contests throughout this article. The proposed change is cumbersome. An introductory note is better. RodCrosby (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Minor parties other strong performance

I'm not quite sure what is meant by 'Parties without representation in Parliament' as e.g. Sinn Fein and Respect did win seats (or a seat, in the latter case) at the relevant election. Anguswalker (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

This means that the parties had not been represented in Parliament until the election in question. The Respect case is marginal, so I've included a note about it. Would you like to suggest a way to rephrase the blurb to make it clearer? Warofdreams talk 14:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

MPs defeated at consecutive general elections

for this category I mean sitting MPs, which invariably means defeated, returned at a by-election, defeated again. Nellist and Mitchell don't belong here, but maybe under another category, durable losers?? RodCrosby 08:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

0 votes?

According to this respected source, someone got 0 votes in 1983. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge83/results.htm Can this be verified in another source? RodCrosby 02:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this is rather an old comment, but this clarifies the situation - his candidature was disallowed (this is actually covered in our article on the British Movement. It's not clear whether he appeared on the ballot and his votes were not counted, or whether he was not permitted to appear on the ballot, but either way, he didn't get 0 votes in any meaningful sense. Warofdreams talk 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Belfast West 1983

Crewe et al assign a 1979 notional Provisional Sinn Fein vote in this constituency and others in 1979. Upon investigation, it appears they are referring to Republican Clubs, who stood in 1979. Without having a theological debate on the "Rock Family Trees" of Irish Republicanism, for practical purposes, is Crewe right? RodCrosby (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Crewe is mistaken. Republican Clubs became the Workers Party and took fifth place in 1983. They had split with [Provisional] Sinn Féin in 1971. SF didn't stand in any elections post-split until they sponsored Anti H-Block candidates in 1981, then stood under their own name in 1982. Warofdreams talk 02:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Crewe must have been of the opinion that their votes were interchangeable with PSF? RodCrosby (talk) 11:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So it appears, but it seems rather odd, given that the clear successor of Republican Clubs also stood in 1983. Warofdreams talk 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Tatton

This article says that the drop in share of the vote for the conservatives in 1997 in Tatton was 24.7%, but the article for Tatton says it was a 17.6% drop. I dunno which is right, just thought I'd point it out Jh39 (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Merthyr

The record swing in the 1970 election was toward an independent candidate, not to the Conservatives. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._O._Davies) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.168.150.10 (talk) 13:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the swing is correctly given; the two-party swing can and is given between any two parties which contest two elections in a row. Incidentally, the swing from Labour to Davies cannot really be calculated, as Davies stood for Labour in 1966. Warofdreams talk 15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Two party swing seems odd to me, and you might well be right, but can it really be said to be such a big swing to the Conservatives when they only got 9% of the vote? In 1966 they got 13%. Surely it can't be a swing to a party whose vote is decreased? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_(politics)#United_Kingdom http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge70/i14.htm http://www.politicsresources.net/area/uk/ge66/i14.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.89.222 (talk) 06:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a swing to the Conservatives because the Labour vote declined by far more. In an unusual case like this, it's not the most useful figure, but it is worth stating in this article, because it remains the record. Warofdreams talk 09:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

This still doesn't make sense to me, despite the explanation above. The Boothroyd source only lists the percentage, not to whom it goes. Can we maybe get a source that says who the swing was actually from and to? tomasz. 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for article improvement

This article has been kept at AfD. During the discussion, I see that User:Claritas raised the following issues: "The first is that it claims to take into account only results from after 1945 (which is a fairly arbitrary point), and secondly that it actually doesn't follow that claim. The choice of which records should be hosted on the page is entirely arbitrary - I can think of plenty of possible records which do not appear on the page ("Highest percentage of vote"). The choice of records and the choice of which results can be counted towards the records seems fairly arbitrary to me. The article is in need of being split due to its excessive length, but there's no logical way of doing it."

I tend to agree that these are significant issues, but I would like to see the article kept and improved. Does anyone have any suggestions for addressing these? Warofdreams talk 10:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As presently written the article does not present the distinction strongly enough, when in the introduction the reader easily sees the "Before" and "After 1945s", and the "unless otherwise mentioned" which may be construed as a loophole. I have only added events pre-1945 with the understanding this page is discussing the Parliament of the United Kingdom as established since 1801.Cloptonson (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

William Gladstone

You include Gladstone in the table of Party Leaders or Deputy Party Leaders who lost seats at General Elections, stating (footnote) he was "defeated" in South West Lancashire yet the constituency succession table in his Wikipedia biography states "constituency abolished" at the general election. Which is correct?Cloptonson (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United Kingdom general election records. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20090327071219/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2005/rp05-033.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928094928/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf

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) 22:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Suggested additions

There may or may not be someone currently 'working on it', but I suggest, as general elections are national elections, categories looking at national statistics for:

• overall votes cast - highest and lowest at an election.
• turnout (I've heard of 2001's being described as "a victory for the stay at home party" because it was so low).
• postal votes - any highs in numbers and proportions of the vote count?

I am aware that theoretically turnout should increase as franchise widens, although I would not be surprised if there were any 'dips' between changes.Cloptonson (talk) 05:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have looked through the articles on UK general elections and find figures for turnout percentage begin being reported against the election of 1918, with a 57.2% turnout (the lowest percentage ever recorded it seems although we do not know if turnout in the December 1910 election was lower). The highest ever was 83.9% in the 1950 election. (The 2001 election previously mentioned had a 59.7% turnout, the lowest since 1918). One could kick off with these but one question - where do the figures come from by way of citation?Cloptonson (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

For earlier elections, F. W. S. Craig's British parliamentary election statistics is the place to look. For the past few decades, probably the Britain Votes series. Warofdreams talk 16:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

To the list of general election firsts in terms of MPs' religions, I suggest users could find out 'firsts' for:

Moravians

Swedenborgians

Eastern Orthodox (the first British adherent to be an MP, Frederick, later Lord North, had been elected at a by-election in 1790s but went to the Lords before the next general election. I wonder if Ukrainian Stefan Terlezki, elected 1983, was of that religion?)

Christian Scientists (earliest known to me Lady Astor but did she have predecessors?)

Spiritualist Church members

Cloptonson (talk) 12:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The first Moravian was Charles Hindley, as The Spectator noted at the time. Warofdreams talk 03:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lady Astor

Under the section Candidate Records Lady Astor is mentioned as a first woman to take her seat in 1919, but her entry to the Commons was a by-election; there was no general election after 1918 until 1922. Lady Astor won then but so did Margaret Wintringham, who had also debuted at a by-election, in 1921.Cloptonson (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have amended the sub-section's information to reflect above facts.Cloptonson (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Presbyterians

The Union with Scotland Act 1706 states:

none of the Subjects of this Kingdom [i.e. the Kingdom of Great Britain] shall be liable to but all and every one of them for ever free of any Oath Test or Subscription within this Kingdom contrary to or inconsistent with the foresaid true Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government Worship and Discipline as above established and that the same within the Bounds of this Church and Kingdom shall never be imposed upon or required of them in any sort ...

This would seem to render the Test Act's prohibition on non-Anglicans invalid to the extent that it would exclude Presbyterians, whether in Scotland or in England. As such it would seem redundant for them to take Anglican communion just to fulfill the Test Act's requirements. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Any chance of percentage of popular vote figures?

Is there any chance of getting percentage of popular vote figures for the governing party after each election?

Something like this table for Canada's general elections on the Simon Fraser University website: https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/1867-present.html 2604:3D09:A87F:FD10:E85C:72A0:E06E:803B (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all in the articles on each general election. Have you got some sort of record in mind that would be interesting (maybe highest and lowest share for winning party, second place, etc)? Warofdreams talk 13:36, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Length

While the article is long, I don't see any obvious countermeasures. It's already a long list of factoids so no easy condensing can be done. There are already loads and loads of subheaders. And I don't see any clear subarticles.

So I've considered it and per WP:HASTE, if we're not forced into action for technical reasons, this article is fine as-is.

If you disagree you can always reinstate the {{very long}} tag. But frankly, it's better you do the rearranging yourself, and spare us a tag that just sits there. You can always use this talk section to ask for input on which parts to move out into subarticles. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 10:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

List 'Longest period without a general election'

A check of the months of years in which the listed elections were held has shown that some intervals were (albeit technically) shorter than the length of interval ascribed them. For example the 1935 election took place in November but the 1945 election was in July of that year, making interval not 10 years but strictly speaking 9 years. Three sets of intervals given as 6 years in fact had a smaller time difference because the second election of the pair failed to make it to the anniversary of the first election, making them short of the at least 6 years goalpost (they are 1812-1818, 1868-1874 and 1900-1906). I have amended the list accordingly, removing those listed intervals that failed to reach the 6 year anniversary.Cloptonson (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Just dropping by to say "Thanks" to the enthusiasts who compile this splendid collection of fascinating information, and who have all been working hard in the last couple of days of unusual results. Well done and thank you! PamD 11:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)