Jump to content

Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Delete request disputed

We have created pages for the last two UK general elections at the start of the campaigns for the previous elections (see 56th election and 57th election). Neither of these pages were deleted. Unless the policy has changed since the last election, I would oppose the deletion. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oppose aswell, overzealous member cause issues --Crazyseiko (talk) 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Definitely oppose deletion. Some people are more eager to pull down than to build up. Oddeivind (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Crazyseiko and Oddeivind: Thank you for your response! If you can, please consider voting in this article's deletion nomination page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/58th United Kingdom general election. --Philip Stevens (talk) 07:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Manifestos to be noted

The Conservatives in 2017 campaigned to abolish the Fixed Term Parliaments Act and provide for lifetime voting rights for overseas nationals.This may not be relevant in itself but if these pledges are repeated in their 2019 manifesto or the issues addressed by those of any other party that should be included.12.144.5.2 (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Move page to 'Next United Kingdom General Election'

now the current election is essentially over, we should move this to 'Next United Kingdom General Election'. I'd do it myself but can't get it to work (the redirect is getting in the way). => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:04, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Spudgfsh: Done. Number 57 11:51, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Switch to standard election template

Should we switch from the legislative election template to the normal infobox template that is normally used for pages for consistency?--BSMIsEditing (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Done, unless undone, which if occurs I will contact mods.--Not Another NPC —Preceding undated comment added 12:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

You really need to respect current consensus and resort to the proper procedures for consensus change instead of unilaterally imposing your view. Once you were reverted the first time by another user, and considering that the infobox has been one of the most disputed issues in UK election articles spanning very long discussions and RfCs, you should have resorted to proper discussion (edit summaries are not meant for that) rather that coming here making threats (please note that whatever you mean with "I will contact mods", any uninvolved administrator is more likely to reprimand you for your behaviour rather than doing anything to anyone that is merely re-establishing the status quo version). Impru20talk 15:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
OK. I'm still somewhat new to Wikipedia so I'll apologise. Can we agree that when the election is called that we add a TIE infobox? Unless of course we want to have a more in depth discussion, involving others, as one of my takeaways from that discussion is that consensus is established on an election by election basis.--Not Another NPC 0:56, 31 May 2020
I think this is the current consensus and what was done in 2019 (please someone correct me if I'm wrong): to keep TILE until the next election is called/held, then change it to TIE. The main issue some have with TIE is that it does not properly represent all parties with parliamentary representation. Some argue that this is not really needed since it would be a possible breach of WP:UNDUE to put a +50-seat party in the same terms than a 2-seat party, but this cannot be really known until the election is held, seats are allocated and we know for sure which parties have how many seats. I don't think this is done on an election by election basis, but rather, a consensus to be applied to all future elections until a new consensus emerges (just imagine if such discussions had to be repeated over and over again, or the awkwardness that would ensue if one such discussion resulted in a vastly different outcome than another one and we had different election articles using different infobox styles).
I have seen there is a similar issue for US presidential elections, where we know it's only Democrats and Republicans that matter in the end but there are always recurring discussions on whether Libertarian, Green, etc. should be added to infoboxes before the election, for the sake of equity. The eternal infobox dispute. Impru20talk 09:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
I concur with Impru20's thoughts. I'm happy with no infobox or with TILE. The TIE infobox is problematic in numerous ways: it's too big, it presumes too much about an event a long time in the future. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Also when an election is called and we move to TIE we can include parties that have been established and appear to play a considerable part in the election. A problem with TIE and TILE last time round was that it prevented mention of the Brexit Party, but we could establish a polling threshold for inclusion; say at 5%, so that if a new party does come along then it can be included despite lacking parliamentary representation, or having less than other parties that don't warrant inclusion, without breaching WP:UNDUE.
But I will say again that among other next election pages TIE seem to be the vast majority, even for ones that's date is not known, including in the devolved parliaments. Obviously a different consensus exists here but if you wish to talk about an established consensus for all elections then it is not TILE.--Not Another NPC 10:19, 31 May 2020
Different elections have different characteristics, so this isn't a one size fits all situation. And while lots of future elections use TIE, plenty don't: e.g. Next Jamaican general election, Next Haitian parliamentary election, 2020 Vincentian general election, 2020 Egyptian parliamentary election, 2020 Serbian parliamentary election. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Flag in Infobox should not be removed

This is daft - but the flag needs to reinstated to the infobox as a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. The lack of a flag here is out of step with the infobox documentation, existing practice and in fact breaks the infobox's appearance. Although MOS:FLAG states (my emphasis) -

Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many.

Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. The documentation of a number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.

Arguably here the flag does add additional information and provides instant identification of the election. The fact also that neither the legislative election or standard election infoboxes have deprecated this function and that including the flag is in line with many other election infoboxes implicitly authorises the use of the Flag in this infobox. In order to remove the flag, you have to leave the country label empty which miscategorises the election and leaves the template incomplete.

We should use WP: COMMONSENSE here - the Manual of Style are not rules which must be followed precisely, such a scenario is against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is incongruent to election articles.

This article is the exception not the rule here.

Examples of Election articles with the infoboxes, which include the flag:

... and so on (I believe nearly all British election articles include it)

(I mean just look at virtually all election articles.)

This is clearly normal practice.

Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 22:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

In what way is the article diminished by the flag not being in the infobox? It is entirely pointless and communicates precisely zero information. Kevin McE (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Visual identification of the article is not necessarily 'entirely pointless' and allows users to quickly recognise for which country (in this case UK) or for which historical version of the country the election is for. This is a communication of information, no doubt. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Flags here are a clear violation of MOS:FLAG. You have the title of the article stating the country. You then have text at the top of the infobox stating the country. There is zero need for a flag as well. It conveys no additional information. The Manual of Style clearly outranks infobox documentation or any WP:LOCALCONSENSUS.
Not all UK elections have a flag. It is specifically excluded on Northern Irish articles because the flag is a political symbol in itself. While not as acute a problem, the same applies to most elections. The flag has political connotations, making it even more inappropriate to have it shown. Three of the parties shown in the infobox have issues with the UK flag.
We have discussed this on the infobox talk page previously, but no consensus was reached there. Thus, it is up to editors here to decide what to do. We do not require consistency with other election articles. As MOS:FLAG says, "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen." Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
It may be that this is violation of the MOS - but my point is the MOS is not an absolute rule and in fact the MOS does not necessarily prohibit this use of the flag in the infobox anyhow - to quote Impru20 in the discussion back on Template talk:Infobox election here:

Here we have a MOS which starts saying that "Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they are unnecessarily distracting and give undue prominence to one field among many." Here you state that "that's our starting point: not to use one", but this already assumes the MOS forcibly requires for flag icons to not be used, despite it being clearly worded as "generally" (as opposed to particular situations) and "should" (which is not a command, but rather, a recommendation). The starting point, thus, would be that they shouldn't but... not that they mustn't.

[...]

Indeed, we are expected to follow MOS, and we should follow MOS. But what we shouldn't do is using MOS in a way they are not intended for, through its restrictive interpretation, then generic application, to the larger community, just because there was a specific incident in one page which did not even start out because of the flag issue (indeed, the removal of the flag from election infobox has seemingly come as a result of the discussion at Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, as a way of cutting it down in order for either avoiding it being removed and/or re-structuring it altogether. I don't think this is what MOS:INFOBOXFLAG intends).

(@Impru20: I will ping Impru20 who is welcome to correct me if I have misrepresented their argument) I think this argument applies here too, "should" is not "must", "generally" is not "always" - though this may seem just a matter of semantics, it reflects the fact that this a Manual of Style not Regulations for Editors. Additionally the arguments given by the MOS do not apply here - this flag is not 'unnecessarily distracting' and does not 'give undue prominence to one field among many'; I would argue that this means that the use of the flag does not come under the general application of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. As another benefit this may prevent editwarring between editors adding and reverting the flag from the article.

Sure, the Northern Ireland articles for Elections don't have the British flag and instead omit a flag but this is because of longstanding issues with the a flag of Northern Ireland and the lack of an official flag rather than any concern over the MOS. I wasn't saying that all elections articles have this but that almost all do. And the United Kingdom general election in... (e.g. 2019 United Kingdom general election in England) articles as well as Devolved elections use their respective national flags, except Northern Ireland of course. I think concerns around Northern Ireland shouldn't mean we ought to remove the flag here, and I don't believe any of the parties (I assume you refer to Sinn Fein, SDLP and Alliance?) mentioned are against the flag being used as a whole for the UK - more about the flag being used in Northern Ireland and the connotations that brings there. As a demonstration of this SF aren't against it being flown in Ireland if the North and South were united - see here. I am happy to be corrected here as I am not an expert on this!
Finally, do we really want to follow the MOS so restrictively against what looks consistent for readers? And for what is a unnecessary restrictive reading of a guideline which may not even apply in this case? Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
We are not required to absolutely follow the MOS in every circumstance, no. But we are meant to follow it as much as possible. And if we are to deviate, we need a good reason to do so. The comment above doesn't give any positive reason for using the flag other than consistency with many (but not all) other election articles. However, the MOS itself ("it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the [...] infobox inconsistent with others of the same type") and policy (WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) is clear that consistency isn't a valid argument for overruling the MOS.
The flag is redundant. Nothing is lost by following the Manual of Style. Some of us users do find the flag icon distracting. There is a case that it is politically loaded as a symbol, thus introducing bias. The best way to stop edit-warring is to consistently follow the Manual of Style rather than having exceptions all over the place. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If I remind it correctly, my comment at that time involved a (way) improper use of the MOS, at a time when there was an edit warring over the inclusion of an infobox in the article. Since they did not get a consensus for removing it, some users resorted to mutilating it by pieces instead, including (among other things) removing the flag claiming that the MOS backed them, despite this not having been an issue in the initial discussion about infoboxes. I think this is what I was talking about in that comment of mine that has been quoted. The issue of the flag was then brought to the template's talk page, but no consensus was reached for its removal.
Frankly, this is an improper way to remove the flag. I still think that the flag use in election infoboxes is outside the scope of MOS:FLAG since it's not purely decorative. Nonetheless, you can't just pretend to remove the flag from a very few articles when it's an established and non-deprecated function in the infobox. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can't apply here because, unlike the arguments proposed for Northern Ireland (which pertain the impossibility to single out any specific flag for use), there is not any specific argument for flag removal in UK elections that do not involve elections as a whole elsewhere in the world. If there is seriously a violation of MOS:FLAG (which I don't think so), under these circumstances it would affect the infobox template itself, not just UK elections. Thus, I can't understand the insistence of bringing this debate here from the same users over and over again: this is an issue that would correspond to the main template page, to determine whether the flag function should be deprecated from election infoboxes if there is an actual MOS violation at the described scale. I've reverted the article to the status quo version until a consensus for removal emerges, since it's clear the issue is disputed and there was not a consensus for flag removal to start with. Impru20talk 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No consensus was reached at the template's Talk page: we should return to that discussion there at some point and attempt to reach consensus. However, in the meanwhile, in the absence of that general consensus, it is entirely acceptable and appropriate for editors on specific articles to come to article-level decisions about flag usage. The documentation at Template:Infobox election has this field as being optional. Moreover, MOS:FLAG says, "If the use of flags in a [...] infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen."
The use of a flag in this infobox is clearly purely decorative. Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
No consensus was reached means no consensus was reached. Which typically results in the status quo version being upheld (in this case, it'd be the flag being preserved) until a consensus for a change exists.
Infoboxes by themselves are optional. There is no rule requiring us to use infoboxes for election articles, yet they are used because it's a very widely accepted standard. The same applies to any "optional" field in any infobox: there are a number of them which are very widely and consistently used, the flag being one of them. Valid arguments can be proposed for not using them (such as the case of Northern Ireland) but this is not what we are seeing here, as the flag itself does not present any issues. Removing the flag because of arguing that it is "decorative" and "a violation of the MOS" would affect not just this article but the template itself, so that's where this should be brought so that the community as a whole can have a say on it. As of currently, there is not any reason as to why we should remove the flag from this article but not from US/Canada/France/Germany/Brazil/etc election articles, for example.
Still, arguments were exposed back then and now so as to explain why the flag is not decorative nor a violation of the MOS, but this can't just be turned into a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue to get rid of the flag only in a few articles against general practice and consistency. Impru20talk 10:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
As you both (Bondegezou and Impru20 seem to agree, resolution at template-level would be preferable. But both the users advocating for its inclusion say that it should be included because there is a parameter for it. Thunderstorm008 wrote that The fact also that neither the legislative election or standard election infoboxes have deprecated this function and that including the flag is in line with many other election infoboxes implicitly authorises the use of the Flag in this infobox. In order to remove the flag, you have to leave the country label empty which miscategorises the election and leaves the template incomplete. and Impru20 wrote that Nonetheless, you can't just pretend to remove the flag from a very few articles when it's an established and non-deprecated function in the infobox. These arguments ignore the first line of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which Impru20 is quoted as quoting above: Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field.
Thunderstorm008 argues that including the flag might meet the MOS's requirements because Arguably here the flag does add additional information and provides instant identification of the election. I do not follow this line of argument: as other users have articulated, when the flag is included it appears directly below the words "United Kingdom", which are also some of the first words in the lead and appear in large text as the title of the article. No additional information is added by the flag. They also say that The lack of a flag here is out of step with the infobox documentation, existing practice and in fact breaks the infobox's appearance. The first two parts defer to the MOS, and are things which could be resolved by deprecating the parameter in a template-wide discussion. I do not understand it breaks the infobox's appearance: does this mean the horizontal line above the date in TILE? I'd agree that that's regrettable but I don't think it's broken by any stretch.
Both users arguing for flag inclusion say that the flag should be included because most other election articles. Bondegezou argued against this using WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I believe not to say that we can decide to exclude a flag here in face of the prevailing practical consensus of inclusion in election article infoboxes, but rather that the prevailing practical consensus of inclusion in election article infoboxes must give way to the broader consensus expressed in the MOS.
I think that in order to support the inclusion of a flag here I would need to see somebody convincingly articulate how the flag would convey information in addition to the text. That's not something I've seen in this discussion or in any previous discussion of this subject. In general, none of us are well-served by perennial arguments about infobox minutiae and it would be fantastic if this subject could reach long-term resolution at template level. Ralbegen (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
These arguments ignore the first line of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, which Impru20 is quoted as quoting above No, no, these arguments do not ignore that. It's pretty much the reverse: arguments calling for removing the flag from some articles ignore that the flag in election infoboxes is not a mere "icon" (as it would be for military conflict infoboxes, sport competitions and the such), but rather an active function in the infobox template. When the MOS establishes that Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field it refers to flag icons added in-text. If you keep reading, you'd see that The documentation of a number of common infoboxes has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons. This means that infoboxes where flags were considered as invalid have had such functions deprecated. The function has not been deprecated for election infoboxes, which means you can't just claim a violation of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG (i.e. assuming the flag's invalidity) for its removal because, as long as it remains integrated and active within the infobox template, it means that it is working as one of the validly-accepted exceptions to the MOS general prohibition rule.
That's not something I've seen in this discussion or in any previous discussion of this subject. I've seen it, but this is a matter of opinion because, as almost everything, flags may convey information in addition to the text for some people but not for others. So what I may see as providing additional information you may see it as useless. As long as the flag function is active in the template it must be assumed to be operating within the boundaries of the MOS, so the way to get rid of it based on a MOS violation is to get consensus at the template level for its deprecation. Impru20talk 11:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
First, I agree with Bondegezou, Impru20 and Ralbegen that resolution at template-level would be preferable, but in absence of consensus on that level we must decide what we think is right here. My view has been and is always that the flag icon should stay because I argue the MOS doesn't apply under the "generally" qualification. If for the sake of argument we say that it does indeed apply under this, the MOS in any case implicitly permits the use of the flag for three main reasons which I have detailed above - TILE and TIE have not deprecated the function, the icon conveys information and function as identification and the language of the MOS indicates it is a recommendation not a directive . I also argue that it is to the benefit of user to keep it consistent and the fact it is used in other election articles gives more weight to these infoboxes being exceptions to the general MOS rule, as this leads to less confusion on the part of the user. Further it is not within the spirit of Wikipedia to follow rules this restrictively.
On resolving this on a higher level - this is so important. I wonder perhaps whether WP:DRN would be useful to resolve this issue? Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 15:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

" allows users to quickly recognise for which country (in this case UK) or for which historical version of the country the election is for" That is absolutely ridiculous. In what way is the title of the article, and the bold text immediately above the infobox, going to leave that in any doubt at all? The only people who need this help for these purposes are those who cannot read, and yet have a knowledge of flags. I am going to estimate the intersection of those two groups and readers of en.wikipedia as zero. Totally pointless. So is this desire to include flags driven by some sort of delight at seeing one's own national emblem, or simply being entertained by bright colours? Kevin McE (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Aha! I am not suggesting that this is for people who can't read! On first glance of the article is certainly helpful to see a flag which immediately identifies the country, especially if they navigate using the year links above in the infobox. Saying that I am "simply being entertained by bright colours" presents me as though I am toddler whose favourite colour is red or something... This is not the only reason for maintaining the flag as you should read above. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
If you are navigating using the year links in the infobox, then you are navigating within one series of elections and the country will be the same. So why on Earth do you need to see a flag to identify the country? Bondegezou (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Because people is not required to navigate one country at a time. I have found myself in situations where I have had articles for elections in different countries or regions opened at the same time, and flags there can be very useful for a more easy identification when navigating through those. They are also helpful to more easily differentiate elections held in the same country but under different political regimes, specifically those where such difference may be relevant (i.e. Spain, Germany, Portugal, Italy, etc). I can understand that some people may not find them useful at all because they may not care about those things, but not caring about something does not mean than that something is "decorative": they are useful for other people, and we have seen this in all the discussions about this issue that we have had.
In what way is the title of the article, and the bold text immediately above the infobox, going to leave that in any doubt at all? Yes, well, infoboxes are meant to summarize content which is already present elsewhere in the article. This very same premise was brought for justifying removing the infobox altogether, something which did not achieve a consensus. The flag would constitute part of that summarization, obviously.
or simply being entertained by bright colours So let's get rid of the party colour templates as well, they are so colorful and entertaining... (meant to be ironic). Please avoid comments that are only about personal considerations on ridiculousness or people's abilities to read or understand things, it's not pleasant. Impru20talk 08:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Impru20, your contributions to Wikipedia election articles are many and varied, and greatly valued. However, the use case you describe of where I have had articles for elections in different countries or regions opened at the same time, and flags there can be very useful for a more easy identification when navigating through those is very unusual. We can't keep flag icons just for that unusual scenario given the damage being done to the Manual of Style and to WP:BIAS from having politically loaded symbols.
If the use of flags in a [...] infobox makes it [...] controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. The above looks like controversy to me. Let's follow guidelines. Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
the use case you describe of (...) is very unusual I did not say that situation was due to editing. I said it was for navigation. This is an encyclopedia, i.e. a source for information. I don't find it that unusual that there are people needing to collect data about, let's say, all elections in the world held in a specific year for research or academic purposes. It's actually one of the most frequent uses of Wikipedia and something that should be taken into account, and for this the flag improves navigation to readers. Please do not attempt to discard my arguments by hypothesizing on "unusual" situations which I have not voiced.
The above looks like controversy to me. Let's follow guidelines. Creating a controversy out of WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues is not a valid reasoning. The only arguments brought to remove the flag are (1) that it is decorative (which in the end is a subjective opinion) and (2) that it is a MOS violation (the argument that is being brought because argument number 1 on its own has little way forward). But a MOS violation of this scope would affect the template itself, because the flag function is integrated within, and since no UK-specific arguments are being brought the persistence in having such discussions limited to UK election articles puzzles me. As explained many times, the MOS allows for exceptions. As long as the election infobox template has such function active, you can't claim it does not comply with the MOS or with Wikipedia guidelines; otherwise, it would have been deprecated as it has been in other infobox templates. MOS must be applied as a whole, not partially or tangentially. If there is an actual controversy/issue like this, then this is not the place to address it. Impru20talk 10:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
These are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. I and others have repeatedly quoted from relevant policy and guidelines on these issues. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG applies. WP:BIAS applies. The flag field is optional. The guidance explicitly says we should not worry about consistency with other infoboxes. Those wanting the flags are the ones wanting a special exception, as you admit in saying the MOS allows for exceptions - something you only need to say if you want an exception! So, don't say these are WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. Please retract that comment. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The exception is already in place, i.e. the function is already integrated in the infobox and currently active. You want it to not be an exception? Get it deprecated. It is an intrinsic element of election infoboxes and you are not making a clear case for its removal here. It is optional? Yes, but that's not an argument: infoboxes as a whole are optional as well and I'm not seeing you calling for us to get rid of those because of "being optional". You are not bringing any UK-specific arguments as to why the UK flag is flawed for use here (such as exist in the case of Northern Ireland) that justify us not using it. And what you cannot pretend is to argue that the flag is in breach of Wikipedia policies, but then that we can allow it to stand for most articles except for UK ones because "it is optional". Either it is a MOS violation (which would merit bringing this to the main template page to determine its fate there) or it is a valid, albeit optional, element (which would require you to raise a justification as to why it shouldn't be used for UK articles only). Because yes: once you get rid of the MOS argument (which falls apart on its own right as per the reasons above explained) it is all down to the "it is decorative" and "it is optional"-sort of arguments. And this is exactly where the IDONTLIKEIT issues lie.
PS. I don't know what connection has WP:BIAS with the discussion at hand. Does the UK flag introduce or pertain to some systemic bias in terms of gender, racial or social class?
I note that you have not retracted your description of other editors' concerns here as WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. I feel that is unhelpful.
I would be happy to see the flags removed from the infobox generally. We happen to be discussing this particular article here. Policy and guidelines support us being able to do that before the question of the general usage is settled. If the use of flags in a [...] infobox makes it [...] controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen.
The Conservatives' "oak tree" logo in Union Jack colours at the 2011 party conference.
Wishing to avoid too much repetition, let me focus on explaining my WP:BIAS concerns in more details, as I mentioned them only briefly above. Flags are inherently political symbols. How much so varies from context to context, but that's why the flag is banned on Northern Ireland article infoboxes. This article concerns an election that includes Northern Ireland and two of the parties shown in the infobox have strong feelings about United Kingdom (Sinn Féin, SDLP). Another party shown in the infobox, the current third biggest party in the Commons, is the SNP, who also have strong feelings about United Kingdom. Other parties have used the Union Jack at various times in their campaigning. The flag has a semiotic value beyond just identifying which country this election is in. By putting it on this election article, for an election that has yet to happen (and thus where Wikipedia may have an influence and we should be especially careful about avoiding bias), we are not being neutral. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I note that you have not retracted your description of other editors' concerns here as WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues. I don't think many of the things that are being said here are helpful either, also one editor specifically mocking people for not agreeing with his view that the flag should be removed. But sadly, most arguments against the use of the flag other than the MOS one are based on people not liking its presence there, so that's IDONTLIKEIT. And it's noteworthy because these discussions, rather than going straight to the point, have a tendency to showing people dismissing others' arguments in support of the flags' usefulness with a mere "it's decorative" line. That's quite annoying, and in the end it's just two deers bashing their heads on one another.
I can't buy your argument about WP:BIAS, which btw has nothing to do with the actual policy itself. Wikipedia does not omit information based on how people feel politically about an issue, and pretending that we should do that could have very serious connotations in terms of WP:NPOV and WP:TE. That the flag is omitted for Northern Ireland (even the article itself does omit it) is one thing, because there are issues there about the actual official symbol for Northern Ireland and, thus, about the encyclopedical value that showing a skewed flag could have. But here you suggest that we should omit the official and undisputed flag of a country, in an election which undoubtedly pertains to that country, because some political parties may have "feelings" about it, and that not doing so would mean Wikipedia is not being neutral. Sorry, but no. I can think of much more politically-loaded symbols, such as the Nazi flag, being used in articles describing Nazi Germany or in those for military conflicts without any kind of issue, because those merely serve a descriptive purpose. The same descriptive purposes that the flag in election infoboxes accomplish. I am also puzzled by your sentence that By putting it on this election article, for an election that has yet to happen (and thus where Wikipedia may have an influence and we should be especially careful about avoiding bias), we are not being neutral. because I cannot see how such an innocuous element can have any influence of any sort in a future election (plus, using that as an argument would mean that someone could come and defend the exact opposite: that it is removing the flag what can have an influence considering the general practice of using flags in election infoboxes and that the flag issue is being fought over just in this article. Then what?). Impru20talk 15:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Your reference to WP:CENSORED makes zero sense. We're not omitting any information. The flag icon is duplicating (actually "triplicating") information already given.
using that as an argument would mean that someone could come and defend the exact opposite: that it is removing the flag what can have an influence considering the general practice of using flags in election infoboxes and that the flag issue is being fought over just in this article. Then what? No. Our starting point is the Manual of Style, which says no flag icons in infoboxes. The MOS continues that if there is any controversy, leave out the flag. So, this isn't an argument that can go either way. If there's concern about something not being neutral, we take it out. If in doubt, we give precedence to words (Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags).
I can think of much more politically-loaded symbols, such as the Nazi flag, being used in articles describing Nazi Germany or in those for military conflicts without any kind of issue, because those merely serve a descriptive purpose. MOS:FLAG says Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units; it has no such exception for elections. The Nazi flag is part of the visual story of Nazi Germany. That's appropriate. Is the flag part of the visual story of a UK general election? The flag has no formal role in UK elections. It does not fly over polling stations. It is not displayed on the ballot paper. It is no more part of the visual story of a UK general election than anything else happening in the UK and we don't just stick United Kingdoms on every UK article.
That the flag is omitted for Northern Ireland (even the article itself does omit it) is one thing, because there are issues there about the actual official symbol for Northern Ireland: incorrect. The United Kingdom is the official flag in Northern Ireland (as per Flag of Northern Ireland), but we don't use even that because of what you characterise as "feelings".
The Manual of Style says, Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements. And what is more political than an election? I am asking you to "listen to concerns raised by other editors". You might think the flag to be "an innocuous elements", but the Manual of Style overrules your opinion and is clear on this. Bondegezou (talk) 17:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Your reference to WP:CENSORED makes zero sense. We're not omitting any information. Allow me quote you textually:

WP:CENSORED prohibites removing (or refusing to add) material to articles just because someone may find it objectionable or offensive. You are proposing to remove a flag because you claim some parties in the infobox may have "feelings" about it because of it being an "inherently political symbol". The implication is very clear, and this kind of action you propose has no place under Wikipedia's guidelines.

it has no such exception for elections. Does it need to be explicit on it? It allows for exceptions in general "when they convey information in addition to the text", and lists some examples of such situations. It is specifically not a closed-listing of topics for flag use. It is not explicit on elections (neither positively nor negatively, btw), but seeing this I'm the more surprised you missed the bit about "The documentation of a number of common infoboxes has long explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons". This brings us back again to the point where the flag function has not been deprecated in this template, which makes it usable and nominally respectful of the MOS. It's you who should prove otherwise in the proper venue and get that function deprecated if it constitutes a violation of the MOS. But it's impossible to cope with this being both such a big issue for election infoboxes, then pretending to limit it only to this article; ultimately, what it looks is that the issue is not that TIE/TILE allow the use of flag icons, but that the UK flag is being shown here. And that is not a MOS issue.

The MOS continues that if there is any controversy, leave out the flag. No. Read carefully. WP:INFOBOXFLAG is specific about "Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used" or them "giving undue prominence to one field over others". That's the sort of controversies it's thinking about, aesthetic issues. It was not in the MOS spirit to be used as a wildcard mechanism to help solve NPOV/personal concerns unrelated to it. And here, clearly the issue is not an over-use (because there is just one) or one of aesthetics, but one about the flag's alleged political connotations, which is an entirely opinionated—and different—issue.

The Nazi flag is part of the visual story of Nazi Germany. That's appropriate. Is the flag part of the visual story of a UK general election? The flag has no formal role in UK elections (...). Do they in military conflicts? Are they specifically flown over in combat lines? There is specific military heraldry for that, sometimes way different in design to the national flags. I hope the case against the flag is not ultimately brought to the grounds where we should discuss how much active use of the flag is made by the various people/places involved. But just to point out, an election is one of those national events where the country's administration gets most involved as a whole. And public administration buildings, including the parliament's (which is the chamber up for election) do typically display it.

At this point, I can only say two things: 1) That as per CENSORED, this is ultimately not a reason to raise a "controversy" to justify bringing the MOS into play in order to get the flag removed, because CENSORED is an actual policy and has prevalence over any interpretation of any MOS. And 2) most ironic of all, the flag in the infobox is probably the least politically-loaded element when it comes to an election (which see political parties facing each other using political arguments which will surely spark "feelings" on everyone involved), yet I am not seeing a discussion for getting rid of many other things just because some party could get offended. Impru20talk 00:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

That's not how WP:CENSORED works. WP:CENSORED says follow policy and guidelines, which would be MOS:FLAG and WP:NPOV. Being neutral is not censoring. You can go to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not with that interpretation, but I can't see anyone supporting you. I am not proposing to remove material because someone may find it objectionable: I am proposing to display the same information differently (that is, it's there 3 times in text and I'm proposing not having it a fourth time as a flag icon) so as to accord with the Manual of Style and Wikipedia requirements to present materially in an unbiased and neutral manner.
MOS:FLAG says, If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen. You appear not to have engaged with that text.
MOS:FLAG gives specific exceptions. They are there because the community want them to be there. They are, ergo, meaningful. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
That's exactly how WP:CENSORED works, because what you suggest is basically in breach of WP:NPOV. The problem is that you intend to remove some information from the article just because some political parties have strong feelings about United Kingdom, and dub such action as in pursuit of neutrality. That's neither neutral nor a valid reason to remove what is in itself neutral and undisputed information (i.e. the flag of a country). You can go yourself to Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not to seek whether CENSORED supports your argument for removing the flag under your reasoning that it's because some political parties may have strong feelings about it. Alternatively, you can open the debate in the infobox template's talk page and propose your vision that adding flags goes against the MOS (because, if it's true, then the function should definitely be deprecated). Btw, you can also take a look about how many other articles about elections have issues with the flag (and yes, turning back to the Nazi flag example, now applied to elections, not even this article or this one have seen such issues about a much more politically-loaded symbol). So far what I see this is happening very locally for this article only, so I can't share the reasoning that we must get rid of the flag because of the MOS because I'm not seeing a consistent application of the MOS argument nor does it appear to be the true argument behind the removal.
You appear not to have engaged with that text. I've engaged with that repeated times when I told you that the infobox template complies with the MOS because the function is not deprecated. You are refusing to even consider seeking a consensus to deprecate a function that, under your own description, would violate a MOS. You are not engaging with my question as to how in the world can United Kingdom's presence in this article influence the next general election. You are not engaging with the part where I am questioning you as to why you only see a violation of the MOS in this specific article. You are not engaging with the part where I copy-paste you the bit of the MOS where it says that the conflicts/issues it refers to have to do with aesthetics, not with the POV issues you're raising (i.e. creating a controversy because some people may not like an (opinionated) political meaning of an otherwise neutral and fully official flag).
Frankly, this discussion seems to be going in circles and it's unlikely we will be reaching a common ground between the both of us. If you think that having a flag in TIE/TILE goes against the MOS, then by all means open up a RfC at those templates' talk pages and seek a consensus for its deprecation. If what you seek is to limit such removal to just this article, then you'll have to do it under an argument other than the MOS one, because you can't claim that flags in election infoboxes breach the MOS, then pretend to cherry-pick the articles to which such a violation affects. As it stands right now, the flag does comply with WP:INFOBOXFLAG by virtue of it being a non-deprecated template fuction. True, you can claim it's "optional", but that would imply its validity and require for you to delve into the true reasons why you think the flag should be removed: as far as we've discussed, this seems to be about the politics of it. In my opinion, that by itself does not sustain as an argument over the NPOV+CENSORED concerns it raises. Impru20talk 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
To focus on the key parts of the above:
The problem is that you intend to remove some information from the article: what information is being removed?
You are not engaging with the part where I am questioning you as to why you only see a violation of the MOS in this specific article. As I said previously, I believe the flag icon violates the MoS on all election articles. However, in the absence of a consensus for what to do globally, we are allowed to consider what to do on an article by article basis. Bondegezou (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
what information is being removed? Oh God.
However, in the absence of a consensus for what to do globally, we are allowed to consider what to do on an article by article basis. Not exactly. We may be allowed to consider what to do on an article by article basis, but you cannot pretend to argue that a MOS violation as the one you claim only happens on an article by article basis just to override the lack of consensus globally on the issue. There are no differences in flag use here as compared to all other articles where the TIE/TILE templates are at use. Arguments other than the MOS one (which would pertain to the template) could justify removing the flag from here, but, unlike the NI case (which is pretty straighforward due to the conflict over the multiple flags), those we have seen here so far revolve around specific POVs on the flag's perception and hypothetical—yet unclear—"influences" on the election rather than on neutral facts that could gather a cross-community consensus.
I cannot think how this course of action intends to prevent raising a perennial controversy over the issue. If the flag function is not deprecated from the template, one or two people not liking the flag in a specific article cannot pretend other users to not be bold and re-add it again, considering that it's customary and consistent practice elsewhere (and this is not hypothetical: it has happened every time there has been an attempt to remove the flag). Arguably, we've seen the attempts to remove the flag do create more conflict than the ones which are allegedly used to justify its removal. Impru20talk 13:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Does infobox show current seats or previous result?

@Czello: The infobox lists Alba, so it appears to be showing the current seats. Should that be changed to the previous result? Bondegezou (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've always been under the impression it shows the results from the last election -- looking over the past few elections, the "previous seats" figure always seems to reflect the gains from the previous election, rather than current results. A good example of this is 2015 United Kingdom general election, which shows two UKIP gains (Carswell and Reckless), when in fact they both won their respective by-elections between the two GEs (consequently, the Conservative "previous" numbers in the infobox are higher than they actually were going into the election). For this reason, Alba's seats should be removed (unless there's a MOS guideline somewhere that I'm missing). — Czello 21:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
We always compare seats with those won in the previous election, for consistency, as we do so with votes. Yet the template void of won seats until the actual election take place has a column named "current seats" which lead to users editing it that way. And with each election result it has to be reversed. It's a bother, but I don't know where to make a change.--Aréat (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I think showing the results at the previous election makes sense, but I can see that there is a tendency for people to want to edit to reflect the current situation. I remain of the view that we don't need to show an infobox for an election a long way off, or we could just have a bare one with no seats shown. Bondegezou (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah in hindsight, we have two tables here. One lists both "elected" and "current" (so, the best of both worlds), while the infobox just has "current", which editors will assume should be consistent with "current" in the first table. I can understand why Alba is listed. — Czello 08:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
The article, appropriately, has a table showing both elected and current. When we have the elections, the infobox will presumably show its results compared to the previous election. Ergo, it makes sense, if anything, for the infobox now to show the previous election results. That said, this is all just infobox porn! Some editors like doing infoboxes, so the article has something, without any consideration as to whether what is shown is actually fulfilling the purpose of an infobox as per MOS:INFOBOX to summarise the article. I remain of the view that a good summary of the article for an election that is a long time off is to state its date, number of seats being contested and the incumbent PM. I support dropping any results from the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Current Seats

Should the Conservatives not still be 365 rather than 366? Although they have gained Hartlepool following a by-election, one of the 2019 Conservative seats Chesham and Amersham is vacant following the death of Dame Cheryl Gillan and will be until its by-election happens. Dunarc (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Sinn Féin Leader

Shouldn't Michelle O'Neill be put as the leader for Sinn Féin here? Mary Lou McDonald is the leader for Sinn Féin in ROI, in Northern Irish election pages O'Neill is listed as the leader, not McDonald. They are technically the same party, but I don't think that applies here given that only Sinn Féin in the North will be involved in a UK general election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:400:C001:650:1551:AEE5:DC7B:D46B (talk) 02:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

We have usually listed the actual party leaders here, so McDonald not O’Neill. On the Assembly election articles, we have usually listed the Assembly/NI leader. That’s perhaps inconsistent, but is longstanding practice. I can see arguments both ways. Bondegezou (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

SNP Party Leader

Although Nicola Sturgeon is the SNP party leader in the Scottish Parliament, and the party as a whole, it is Ian Blackford who leads the party within the Westminster government and perhaps an edit reflecting this should be included in this article. 87.114.91.208 (talk) 12:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Date of Election

Unless I'm getting my maths wrong, shouldn't the latest date of the election be Tuesday 28th January 2025?

Representation of the People Act 1983 (Schedule 1 Part 1) provides that the election must take place no later than 25 days after the dissolution of Parliament (17 Dec 2024), and those 25 days exclude:

  • Weekends;
  • Christmas Eve and Christmas Day;
  • Bank holidays under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 (26th December, 1st January and 2nd January).

Add all that up and I think it takes you to 28th January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:1803:D001:F096:84A4:E6:8597 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes it seems you're correct. I hadn't appreciated that the Act specifically calls out Christmas Eve and also forgot about Jan 2 which is only a bank holiday in Scotland Jedi Master Bra'tac (talk) 09:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Deselected MPs

Should a new section be added for defeated MPs - either through deselection or defeat when the GE comes, so we can add Sam Tarry to the list? 2A01:4B00:9D7A:F00:1546:6F57:EC36:DEE (talk) 18:48, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

My view would be to wait until Tarry's intentions are clearer: If he chooses not to stand as an Independent, he can be added to the list of MPs not seeking re-election (with a caveat note saying he was deselected); if he does stand, and loses, he will be added to the list of those who did not return to Parliament at the behest of the electorate. For now it's too early to say for sure. OGBC1992 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Situation before the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act subsection

We have this as a subsection of the Date of the election section. Why? Surely the facts about criteria that will affect the date that are worth mentioning are those that are actually relevant at the time the reader looks at the article. Rambling comments about what might have been the case had something else not happened are irrelevant, and are based on a circumstance that no longer holds. Is there any good reason to not delete the entire section? Kevin McE (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@Kevin McE: I would encourage you to be WP:BOLD and make any edit you think improves the page. Some mention of the situation changing as a result of the repeal, and how it changed, may be warranted, but if you believe that the section is straying off into the irrelevant then get rid of it. If someone notes a good reason to keep the section, they can always revert you, and then you can discuss their revert here. But nothing is stopping you getting rid of the section now, as it wouldn't be disruptive. --TedEdwards 14:14, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Done Kevin McE (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

First general election, since death of Elizabeth II

I've added that this will be the first general election, since the death of Queen Elizabeth II. Though it will likely be the first one, during King Charles III's reign. It's best we wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Hancock

Does anyone have a source saying that he will not stand again, rather than that he will not stand again as a Conservative? Although his comments have been widely interpreted as saying he will not stand for palriament again, we are now on the second source that does not explicitly say so. And if that is the case, should he be on the list of those stepping down? Kevin McE (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

Template: Infobox legislative election versus Template: Infobox election has recently led to a small edit war and I think we should receive consensus about which to use. — RealFakeKimT 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

There was a conversation before here, and there were a lot of conversations for the 2019 article when it was Next United Kingdom general election, both of which ended up in TILE being used. I think TILE is sensible to keep at least until the election is called. If using TIE, I am not keen at all on including the leader since and leader's seat parameters. Those are not key elements of the next general election, though who the leaders are is an important element. Ralbegen (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
That's not correct. Both TIE and TILE infoboxes are in use. Here are some upcoming Parliamentary-style elections using the Infobox legislative election format: Next Indian general election (the biggest democratic election in the world!), 2023 East Timorese parliamentary election, Next Albanian parliamentary election, Next Danish general election, Next Armenian parliamentary election, 2023 Guinea-Bissau legislative election, 2023 Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2026 Brazilian general election, Next Croatian parliamentary election, 2023 Guatemalan general election, 2021 Kyrgyz parliamentary election, Next Palestinian legislative election, 2024 Panamanian general election, 2024 Indonesian general election, 2023 Turkmen parliamentary election, 2023 Belarusian parliamentary election and many more. Bondegezou (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The Beckett-Timpson Conundrum

Now that Edward Timpson has also said he is standing down, we have an interesting conundrum for the “Members Not Seeking Re-election” section.

Under Margaret Beckett, we have listed the seat she currently represents, but under the First Elected column we have the earliest year she joined the Commons, despite it being a different constituency.

For Timpson, we have gone for both current seat and the start of his current period of service (December 2019) rather than the year he first joined the Commons in 2008.

A consistent approach is clearly needed. Preferences? OGBC1992 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't see the problem. 'Seat' as a column header will only ever be expected by the reader to mean current seat; 'First elected' will only ever be taken to mean when they were first elected. If the intention is to show how long they have been in parliament continuously (excepting election periods), then the column header should read 'MP since..." or something similar. It would appear that whoever added Timpson either was unaware of his previous stint, or didn't note the text of the column header. So unless the column header is to be changed, Timpson should have the 2008 date (and has had since a couple of hours after your post). If indeed, the section has any merit at all (see my comment below). Kevin McE (talk) 09:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Deselections

The deselections are starting to trickle in - at least three Conservatives plus Corbyn - and this should ideally be reflected here.

I would suggest including them in the "MPs not standing" table, with an extra column indicating the reason (retired, not selected, possibly others).

One hitch is that deselection doesn't necessarily mean not standing, but a note to this effect should be sufficient. (Of the MPs deselected so far, only Corbyn has hinted that he might fight on.)

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest not including them in the "MPs not standing" table, but having a separate section/sub-section for now, until it becomes clear who is definitely not standing under a different label. As well as the aforementioned, Labour MP Sam Tarry has been deselected too but hasn't yet made his future intentions clear. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Yes, I can see the point of a separate section - and I'd forgotten about Tarry. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I honestly doubt the value of a not standing section at all: surely the principle of a limited term appointment is that there is no automatic assumption of continuing in the role beyond the end of that period, and the list of people who will not stand for election runs to scores of millions. But if it must exist, then yes, deselection (or voluntary self-removal from party consideration, which is all that Hancock had said) does not amount to not standing. Kevin McE (talk) 09:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There's also a hitch that a lot of selection processes are badly reported as though the first set back is a deselection. The Conservative MPs so far have failed to be approved by the new association executives but are eligible to go forward to a members' meeting against other candidates. The process for Labour is similar but with a "trigger ballot" of branches rather than an executive vote. To add to the confusion at least one of the three Conservatives (Damian Green) was not applying to the new seat with the most of his current constituency's electorate. In 2019 Margaret Hodge had a similar setback, losing the trigger ballot and having to compete against other candidates but was not deselected.
The Corbyn situation is a mess with a lot of words, a lot of demand in all direction (including attempts by supporters to modify the rules to allow his party to stand him regardless of the whip situation) and a clear wish by Sir Keir that Corbyn would just announce a retirement and go away. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the list! I think I want to turn this into a table like the above one, with one additional column describing what the MP in question has said they intend to do/did at the next election, in response to being deselected (retired, changed party, contested deselection, etc), but I can't think of a good column heading for the time being... "Subsequent MP career", "MP election plans", "Post-deselection changes", "MP response", or just maybe just plain but flexible "Notes"? EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:50, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Scheduling Conflict

Err, the lede currently says "The next United Kingdom general election is scheduled to be held no later than 24 January 2025", but the first section (Background) says "The next election is scheduled to be held no later than December 2024". 86.26.33.25 (talk) 21:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This supports the January date. Bondegezou (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Date

Change article name to 2024 United Kingdom General Election 2A00:23C8:F81:D401:ACCC:7C4B:78B3:3F5D (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

See RM above. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 10 April 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Closed early per snowball clause (non-admin closure) MaterialWorks (contribs) 22:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Next United Kingdom general election → 2024 United Kingdom general election – Downing Street has revealed that it is to be held in autumn 2024, see this. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree to move to 2024. --79.66.89.36 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"No firm decision will be taken on an election date" and "provisionally circled" are not great reasons to move an article, are they? Ralbegen (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
From The Times - Number 10 "plans to go to the polls in the autumn [2024]". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the wording of the article is far too certain about the date than it really should be, given that the only source is a single article based on anonymous reports. Usually the timing of an election is kept secret for as long as possible, to the strategic advantage of the ruling party, and reports like this occasionally show up as bluffs. N4m3 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
Even if this report turns out to be wrong, I still stand by my edits as they reflect sourced information. The Telegraph is an RS per WP:RSPSS, and other outlets like The Times are beginning to report on the story. I would like to say that the "no firm date" quote is evidence more of there not being a set time in autumn 2024 than there not being a set season or year. In any case, the election will most likely take place in 2024 (even Liz Truss admitted this). We can always revert the move, but right now, with the current sources (and likely many more to come over the week) the article title should reflect this. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Definitely not yet because, as the article mentions, The Telegraph essentially said a May 2023 general election was a sure thing (definitely not happening). Plus, it's one source posting it as a paywalled "exclusive" - not what you'd expect if it was as certain as changing the page name would suggest. Nothing has yet happened that means it can't be 2023 or 2025, regardless of probability. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 23:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per WP:NCELECT and customary practice in Wikipedia. This election's date is not fixed, meaning it can legally be held at any time before 2025. Yes, a 2024 election is the most likely outcome, but assuming that a 2024 election will happen at this point would fall under WP:CRYSTALBALL. Plus, this wouldn't be neither the first occasion nor the first country in which some media point to an election in XXXX year, then a snap election being triggered at some other point. Further, the nom acknowledges himself above than "we can always revert the move" if the election happens to not be in 2024, so why should we move it then if we acknowledge ourselves than 2024 is not a certain thing? What's the need or rush for we to move it from a 100% accurate title abiding to naming conventions? Until it's legally impossible for an election not to be held in 2023 (or 2024, though the timeframe for it being held in 2025 is very short), "Next United Kingdom general election" is still a more accurate title than "2024 United Kingdom general election". Impru20talk 06:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
    I think a 2025 election is quite unlikely, but definitely still plausible until the general election is actually called. They may, for now, be planning to have an election in late 2024, but if something goes horribly wrong just before the government call it (like the financial crisis that stopped Brown), they'll push it back as far as possible – possibly to this latest date in January 2025. N4m3 (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose - reliable source or not, this is still speculative. It's also not at all unlike this Government to say one thing and end up doing another...OGBC1992 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Even if Conservative Party strategists are aiming for an election in autumn 2024, absolutely nothing binds them to this until an announcement is made from the steps of 10 Downing Street. It would be misleading to imply that the date is fixed when it is not. Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Weak oppose - per others. This is the kind of thing it's best to defer to primary sources for. There's always gonna be speculation, which doesn't always come true. I recall before the formal announcement of the date for King Charles's coronation, there was speculation it could occur on the 70th anniversary of Elizabeth II's, even in reliable sources. The only way we'll know it to be true is when the government (ie. primary source) announces the date/timeframe, and secondary sources will pick it up thereafter. Estar8806 (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose I have a feeling it will be called before maybe in the autumn! 2A00:23EE:1678:43D9:7DCF:163B:3D9E:CC9C (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Oppose anything is subject to change.
The election date hasn’t officially been announced and agreed with the sovereign.
until that happens it should remain as Next UK General Election. King4852 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deselections — Richard Bacon

Restored Bacon, whose decision to retire was a consequence of his deselection.

The deleter's novel theory about what the section is for needs to be justified.

Utilisateur19911 (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

The legislative infobox should be replaced with the regular version

legislative should be for multi party elections even though third parties have seats in the house of commons they are mostly irrelevant with the exception of the SNP and Liberal Democrats (seat wise popular vote is another story) which could easily fit into a regular infobox. KatieCamp (talk) 03:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

"De-" selections in new and reconfigured seats

Where MPs from the same party fight a selection battle because of one or more of their constituency boundaries were redrawn, it doesn't seem quite right to say the loser(s) suffered deselection. I would suggest these battles should be in their own subsection and that deselection should be limited to the MPs whose local or national parties pushed them out. It really isn't accurate to say that, for example, Flick Drummond has been deselected as the MP for Meon Valley or for Fareham and Waterlooville. The former will have no candidate at the next election, and the latter had no candidate to deselect until Braverman defeated Drummond. -Rrius (talk) 00:56, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Boundary reviews

The sources used to populate the hypothetical 2019 election result based on the 2023 boundaries (while a useful exercise) are not reliable nor reputable. Electoral Calculus and ElectionMapsUK do not use the detailed data analysis required to make such calls across all 650 seats and I posit that it would be better to wait for a source like Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, or Professor Sir John Curtice (if he does produce that kind of work) to put out their estimates for the 2019 result based on 2023 boundaries and to then provide a range (if there is one) between their work produced. And in the meantime to do away with the table that exists in the article at the moment. DJDonegal (talk) 12:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Latest date

There seems to be some confusion about what the latest possible date for the next election is. There are sources for both 24 and 28 January 2025 - the article contains a source from the Electoral Commission that says the 28th - but if it has to be held no more than 25 working days after the expiry of this Parliament (17 December 2024), then that would work out as the 24th, or even the 27th if we take the Scottish Bank Holiday on 2nd Jan into account. Does anyone have a definite answer to this? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be 28 January 2025. According to SCHEDULE 1, Representation of the People Act 1983, Scottish Bank Holidays and Christmas Eve shall also be disregarded.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
It would be better if we could cite secondary sources on this. Bondegezou (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
There are 2 sources cited already: Electoral Commission and Politico. We go by sources, not by editors counting on their calendars, per WP:V. Kevin McE (talk) 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Boundary reviews deadline

There is a suggestion here that the four month deadline for submitting the new Parliamentary Boundaries Order to a meeting of the Privy Council has been missed. No one knows for sure what this means and there are no reliable sources yet but it is worth keeping an eye on. Cavrdg (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This tweet in reply says the deadline has been met. Bondegezou (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Date

Although Sunak has said he is going to hold the election in 2024, this is clearly not binding on him, and if polls don't improve for the Tories during 2024 it can't be ruled out that he'll change his mind and leave it to the last possible date. So I'm not sure this should be in the lead sentence, though it could be mentioned elsewhere in the article. What do others think? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 10:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The weight of reporting around this does not suggest that reliable sources are putting that much weight on Sunak's statement. Bondegezou (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

De-facto referendum

Sturgeon had said that it was her (apparently personal) intention to treat the election as a 'de-facto referendum' on devolution. But she is no longer in authority: did it ever become an official SNP policy? Has Yousaf said that he regards it as such? If so, that should be what is stated and cited in the 'Background' section; if not, it should probably be deleted as the personal musings of somebody of no official standing. Kevin McE (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This is already covered in the "Campaign" section - Yousaf also favoured using the election as a de facto independence referendum, but this was voted down at the SNP's annual conference. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks: I read that subsequent to my query, and deleted it from the top of the article as it was cited as not being party policy. Probably worth keeping where it is as part of remote background. Kevin McE (talk) 13:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Relevance of change of monarch?

Some editors seem keen to add the fact that it will be the first GE since death of Elizabeth/ascension of Charles. This has no impact at all on the timing, conduct or result of the election, so while it is undoubtedly true, and while it is acknowledged that a government nominally acts in the monarch's name, it is entirely irrelevant to the election (ie the process of selecting members of parliament, rather than the period of governmental power). This series of articles has tacitly acknowledged that by having no reference to the monarch in its previous editions: if there were any relevance, then the (e.g.) 2005 GE article would refer to that being the 14th during the previous reign. It wasn't mentioned then, or in other equivalent articles, because it is nothing to do with the election. It might matter constitutionally that there is a monarch, but not who it is or how long they have held the role. The first of a reign is no more significant than the 3rd, 7th or 11th: if anyone thinks otherwise, it is for them to demonstrate the reason why. Failing that, the comment should be removed, and remain absent. Kevin McE (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Once the election has been held, there will probably be a "government formation" section, where of course the winner's trip to see the monarch is an obvious mention, and mentioning that it's Charles' first time following an election seems reasonable. I wouldn't call that lead material, though.
As for right now? I think it's WP:CRYSTALBALL territory and should be removed. EditorInTheRye (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
We are meant to follow what reliable sources say. Reliable sources are not talking about this as being a significant part of the story of the next election. Ergo, we shouldn't either. Also, there is no mention of it in the body of the article, so it shouldn't be in the lead, as per WP:LEAD. Bondegezou (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Here we go again… OGBC1992 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you that it's pretty minor and no need to include it, but 1955 United Kingdom general election does have an equivalent mention - though to be honest, there it almost feels like padding to try and flesh out an otherwise very short lead for an unexciting election! The other "first of the reign" elections don't, until we get back to 1837 (when it was still constitutionally significant). Andrew Gray (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Why no mention of Reform?

Reform is projected to win 9% of the vote but bizarrely I cannot find a single mention of it anywhere on the page - is this intentional or simply a glaring oversight? Please let me know if there is a reason for its omission otherwise will add, thanks Lord Pharoah (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibly because they have no MPs (and are also projected to have none)? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Also because we're not just listing every party - where in the existing article would they actually warrant a mention? OGBC1992 (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
The 'opinion polling' section shows a plot where Reform are in joint-third place, without further explanation. Adding a single sentence about Reform in that section appears justified to me. Modest Genius talk 15:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
There is a separate page for polling (Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election) - I suggest it makes more sense to edit that page, rather than just mention them on this one for the sake of it. OGBC1992 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
No, if the plot is shown in this article, it 'makes more sense' to explain its labels here, not in a different article. Readers shouldn't have to go elsewhere to understand the labels here. Modest Genius talk 12:54, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The 2019 article mentions 'Brexit Party' over 50 times despite them winning no seats either - in any case it seems odd to have no list of major candidate parties on the page for the election. Lord Pharoah (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
That is very different, as a) the Brexit party made a deal with the Tories which turned out to be highly significant (no such deal exists this time around) and b) this election hasn’t happened yet. Once it has there might well be valid reason to mention Reform. At the moment it would just be crowbarring them in. OGBC1992 (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a statement of record, not a blog of what might be. When Reform has election results to report, we can report them. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Predictions three weeks before the vote etc

I take it we will carry this on, just to ask what are the current best seat predictions?


Is there any others we should be keeping an eye out for. Crazyseiko (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

We should be led by reliable source coverage, and it's too soon to really think about assembling tables for an election that hasn't been called yet! Honestly, in the 2019 article these tables take up a massive amount of space and prominence in the article relative to the prominence of seat projections in sources: we shouldn't be looking to recreate that for the next election. Ralbegen (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
being prepared for a snap election is no bad thing, however they have been done for the past 4 elections. Maybe a new page would be better, mind you maybe we should also have a new page for TV debates, and results which took up even more room. --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This page https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/48371-yougov-mrp-shows-labour-would-win-1997-style-landslide-if-election-were-held-today does include a prediction, but it was commissioned by Tory Party donors and has been criticised as having ulterior motives, so perhaps it isn't "authoritative", or "objective", I suppose I mean. Nick Barnett (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Notional results to use

Thrasher and Rallings have now published their calculated estimated 2019 general election results, which most media organizations will use. There is however a slight problem that the precise actual results of the 2019 general election are known for the new seats in Wolverhampton and Walsall councils, because those (and only those) councils published election results by ward in 2019. My instinctive thought is that in those places, we should use the actual known election results over the estimates, but news organizations do not tend to do so and they just use Thrasher and Rallings data everywhere. This is meaningful because Thrasher and Rallings estimated Labour to have led by 6.2% in the new Wolverhampton South East, but in fact we know from the published data that it in fact went Conservative by 1.4%. So the decision on whether we use the real published election data or the Thrasher and Rallings estimates for those seats will affect how many seats each party notionally has. 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC) Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:14, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We should follow what reliable sources do—which might mean including multiple sets of notional results, but shouldn't include making our own editorial changes to others' calculations. Ralbegen (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Using the figures provided by councils on our own initiative would fall foul of WP:OR], IMO. If any reliable sources do report on those figures we can include them, but unless they do I don't think we should include them.  M2Ys4U (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Right– we can't really synthesize the known results in the five Wolverhampton/Walsall seats in with Rallings/Thrasher estimates for the rest of the country when no news organization does so as that would be OR. Readers obviously needed to be provided accurate info though, so I think the way of doing it would be to use Rallings/Thrasher by default as most news organizations do, but where it's relevant to do so, we could include a brief description of why the estimates used are different to what the actual known results were? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 18:22, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Same year as US election: so what?

I removed the note about this being on the same year as a US election as irrelevant trivia: it has been re-instated. I se no grounds for it. On average, one should expect a quarter of UK general elections to be in the same year as a US election; the US is only one of about 200 other sovereign states; a very insignificant number of people have voting rights in both; the relationship of the UK with the US, yet alone with any particular US administration, is not considered to be a significant part of voting intentions in the UK. Yes, a new or returning government will need to deal with a new or returning US administration, but that is a matter for the government that will be formed after the election, and is absolutely nothing to do with the calling or conduct of the election. Delete it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure one should expect a quarter of elections to be in the same year as a US election - I'm not sure that adds up mathematically. Regardless, there is a reliable source - the Financial Times - that has written a whole article on the noteworthiness of it; this notability doesn't come merely from the fact that it's only the second time both nations have gone to the polls concurrently in sixty years. The fact that two of the most dominant/powerful nations on Earth with so much geopolitical heft are choosing their leaders within months - if not weeks - of each other is not insignificant, and as the citation states it could have big repurcussions for both the world, and the elections themselves, in terms of security. OGBC1992 (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm minded to agree. If it's held on the same day, then that's notable doktorb wordsdeeds 09:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If US elections are held every 4 years, then on what mathematical basis do you question the statistical assumption that a quarter of UK elections can be expected to be in the same year? If it hasn't happened as much as would be expected, that is a statistical anomaly, not a politically relevant determination.
Most of us are not going to pay £59 to see the FT article: please persuade us of what this significance is in relation to the election (as opposed to what governments might do after an election).
Yes, if it were on the same day, that might merit a mention, not least as it will be a departure from voting on a Thursday. That seems extraordinarily unlikely to be happening. (@Doktorbuk: it's not quite clear from the position of your reply who you agree with). Kevin McE (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry Kevin, was with you :) And you've delicately shot me down because of course it can't be on the same day. Same week? Anyway, it's of trivial interest until it happens. doktorb wordsdeeds 15:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
The FT article has gone behind a paywall since I cited it, for some reason, but it explained the security risks of both elections in the same year, in terms of cyber-warfare and electoral interference. It was far from trivial.
And in terms of maths, I think the irregular pattern of UK general elections means it's not quite so straightforward as one in four will be the same year. If they were held every year then yes, obviously that holds water, but they don't. Now the Fixed Term Parliaments Act has been junked, it's entirely possible that they'll never align again. (This doesn't make it notable, I'm just making the point.) OGBC1992 (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
One FT article doesn't make something noteworthy. Is there wider coverage of this issue? Several articles on the matter would be more persuasive. I recall seeing something saying it might be a reason for the UK election not to be held around the same time, but I can't find it now.
I don't think a May UK election and a November US election are particularly notable. Two elections days/weeks apart would be more notable. But we don't know the UK date yet. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
If the consensus ends up determining to include this fact, then we should also include the details about security risks – if that's what determines notability here then it needs to be in the article. Otherwise it's just trivia. — Czello (music) 15:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


Date of election (again)

Emily Thornberry's comments about a May election being the "worst kept secret" were in December and so arguably are no longer relevant, since it was only after that that Sunak spoke about holding it in the second half of the year... though I suppose it depends whether or not you take that at face value. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Too many people seem too keen on posting every quote they hear from a politician: we are editors (those who select what to include) of an encyclopaedia (a timeless depository of facts), not compilers of an archive of political comment. I do not believe that anything beyond legal requirements and one comment by the person who has authority to call the election (the PM) sits withinn the requirements of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT. Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not quite as hardline on this as Kevin McE, but I think we can just summarise and say there is debate as to when the election might be. We don't need to compile quotations on the topic. Bondegezou (talk) 10:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair points. I've now removed the Thornberry quote from the lead, as I'm inclined to agree that we shouldn't include a lot of speculation about the date, and especially not in the lead. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Debate implies that there are opinions of equal validity and equally well informed. There are not. There is one person who will make the decision (presumably with some consultation) and anything else is speculation. If those who want the election sooner suggest that it is likely that it will be, they are simply trying to make it more difficult for the govt to delay: that is political manoeuvring, not debate. Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Date is not set Cwater1 (talk) 01:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to collect same data to state there is or was etc chance of a June Election on the cards, However we could still end up Autumn but at least we have put in some Ref to stay it was being looked out because of the Local elections. Once the date is announced we can come back to page and say what is what --Crazyseiko (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

While this one can be used if we end up in December:

We don't need to speculate about anything. When there is an announcement there will be a very clear item to reference: we don't need to give any credit reference to broken clocks that are correct by co-incidence rather than by knowledge. Kevin McE (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
    • You have failed to understand, Were not speculating, I believe we are heading to Auttum election but in the section "Possible dates" When we get past June, we can add a sentence saying there was talk june election etc etc The fact more than a few politcal people have suggested it means there is something to it. Talk page should have background information and prep for any Article, this would fall under that. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox (2)

For a while now I have been attempting to change the infobox from Template:Infobox election (TIE) to Template:Infobox legislative election (TILE). I believe the latter is is better because I think the infobox needs to show all parties (I explain why in the next paragraph) and TIE (one with photos of leaders) can only accomodate a smaller number of parties, for both technical reasons (limit to 9 parties, less than the 13 parties represented the house at the moment, and the 10 elected at the last election) and for ease of use: per the manuel of style on the purpose of infoboxes The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, meaning even having 9 parties in the infobox would be problematic as it's too much to [allow] readers to identify key facts at a glance (quote again from MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE).
I believe is important to have all parties in the infobox because only having the 4 largest parties in the infobox implies there are only 4 major players in the election, which you can't say before the results are declared. So by limiting the number of seats makes assumptions about the results months before the vote. By not having photos and the leaders' seats in the infobox, TILE has less information, and so the remaining information can be absorbed by the reader more quickly and easily (going back to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). And it lists all the parties, and so avoids making assumptions about which parties will have significant numbers of seats at the next election.
The only arguments I have found for using TIE an insubstantial. Many seem to simply not like TILE (which is not a reason to change) and others say other pages use TIE. The latter group are however comparing unlike with unlike. Either they suggest that we should use TIE because previous British elections (where the results are known) use TIE, which is a flawed argument as the results, and therefore the parties with significant numbers of seats, are not known for a future election. Or they compare future British elections to future elections in other countries, where the number of parties with seats in their legislatures is different (and often lower), meaning there are few enough parties to accomodate all in TIE.
I hope what I've written above is clear. I also want to make a point against using blank maps in infoboxes, which I believe serve little purpose as for now they are just lines on a map of the UK which will be hard to read until the map is filled in as there is no colour to differentiate the constituencies.
I have changed the infobox back to TILE with a summary directing editors to this page, hopefully to avoid editors reverting for insubstantial reasons. Obiviously if editors have a substantial reason why TIE is better for this page (not ones that fall foul of WP:Other stuff exists and WP:I don't like it) they can revert back to TIE.--TedEdwards 14:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I support this. In the past, we agreed to go with a TILE infobox before the election. (It can be switched to TIE afterwards.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
@TedEdwards I disagree- in the past, UK elections used TIE until the election. Also, TIE looks nicer as an infobox whereas TILE is literally just a table of the political parties and their MP counts (which is already given, literally just a couple of lines below!). In pre-election runup TIE conveys the main information (leaders, their seats, seats required to win) and TILE is just an MP and party count. DimensionalFusion (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
If we are to use TIE then surely it must include all parties. Will it still look nicer when it's got 13 different parties on it? OGBC1992 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@OGBC1992 Who said you needed to put 13 different parties on it? In previous articles (2017, 2019) when the election had not yet been called, we would use TIE and display the 6 largest parties before the election- Conservative, Labour, SNP, Lib Dem, DUP, and SF. This is much better than simply using a list of parties and MPs DimensionalFusion (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
As @TedEdwards says, "by limiting the number of seats makes assumptions about the results months before the vote." OGBC1992 (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: TIE looks nicer is an entirely subjective opinion of yours, so not an argument to change the infobox. Also UK elections used TIE until the election a) not entirely true for at least the 2019 election (I've checked revisions in October 2019 and both infoboxes were used at various times, and at some point the photos and party info were removed to leave just a map, which was the case until the day of the election) and b) basically just another argument that goes against WP:OSE, similar to arguments I criticised above. What was done in the past may not be best for this article, or that article at the time. Thanks to OGBC1992 for reiterating that not including all the parties makes assumptions. WP:Lead says the lead (including the infobox) is a a summary of its most important contents, so repeating stuff lines later is normal, useful and acceptable across Wikipedia. So that only argument you make that has any weight is mentioning that TILE does not include the number of seats needed for a majority. However even without that, I believe the disadvantages of TILE compared to TIE are outweighed by the benefits of TILE (which I have described above). Also I don't know if we could find a way to include seats needed in TILE (even by suggesting an edit to Template:Infobox legislative election). --TedEdwards 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
@TedEdwards No. TILE is literally just a table of parties, leaders and seats. TIE displays useful information and it displays it in a much friendlier format- a table is much less friendlier as an infobox. WP:OSE doesn't apply here because that's for deletion discussions and it's about notability. Other elections have had a precedent of using TIE for both pre-election and post-election, in both 2017 and 2019. Whilst it's true that TIE excludes some of the smaller parties, it's not supposed to display them- TIE is for an overview of the biggest parties and their performances.
It is true that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the infobox is a summary of its most important contents, and yes, content is often repeated from the infobox into later in the article. TILE offers no advantages other than being able to list all the parties, which is only the case because again- it's a table. Using TILE instead of TIE in the pre-election period is not the precedent at all- conversley, using TIE in the pre-election preiod is very common in FPTP Westiminster systems. See: Next indian general election and next Australian federal election. TILE only tends to be used in European elections, where hung parliaments are pretty much the norm. DimensionalFusion (talk) 17:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: You are still not getting to the crux of my argument that not including all the parties with MPs, you imply only some parties have a chance. You say WP:OSE only applies to deletion discussion because it's on the page WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, but if you read the last paragraph of the lead to that essay, it says While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc. (see also WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages). Indeed on WP:Arguments to avoid on discussion pages, there is WP:OTHERCONTENT, which basically says it's fallacious to suggest one article should do something because another article does it. TIE displays useful information and it displays it in a much friendlier format is entirely your own opinion, as is a table is much less friendlier. I mean who is saying table's are less "friendly" other than you? Your examples of the Indian and Australian elections: again WP:OTHERCONTENT and maybe they should change to TILE until the election (I also never said anything about precedent to justify changing to TILE). So what I'm afraid I'm seeing from you are the two arguments I criticised in my first message, WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (saying tables are less friendly as infoboxes) and saying this article should do one thing solely because you've found some other articles that use TIE (or appeal to tradition). I'm sorry to say this, but you do not have any non-fallacious arguments beyond mentioning one useful thing TILE doesn't include. --TedEdwards 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@TedEdwards You've changed the infobox for no reason. It was fine the way it was before.
  1. I agree that TILE does include all parties, so it's fairer and doesn't assume the performance of any particular parties. But let's critically analyse this- in the pre-election run-up it's showing what the current major parties are. Including every party with MPs is cluttering the infobox and detracting from its clarity and readability. The Worker's Party of GB for example- does this really need to be included with the major players in the next election when they only stand 1 candidate?
  2. My assertion that TIE provides a friendlier format is based on its design. TIE emphasizes only the key information, such as the current seats held by each major party, and the seats needed for a majority, the party's leader, and the leader's seats. Whilst yes, tables can be effective for presenting all data, TIE presents only the pertinant information. If the reader wanted to know about all the parties, this is listed further down in the article.
  3. Whilst your point about the potential fallacy of appealing to other articles' practices may be correct, my point about other election articles which use TIE was supposed to show its widespread use and effectiveness in similar contexts. I think that consistency between upcoming election articles is important to consider.
DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

TIE infoboxes are way too big and full of unnecessary information, in contradiction of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Further to DimensionalFusion, you say You've changed the infobox for no reason. Well that's true, except for the reasons I have stated over and over again. TIE does not contain solely absolutely pertinant information: the leaders and leaders' seats are not pertinent, and only should be included when we can cut down on the amount of info in the infobox i.e. after the election when we will (probably) be able to ignore most parties. You say my point about other election articles which use TIE was supposed to show its widespread use and effectiveness in similar contexts, but you haven't shown their effectiveness, you've just said they're there. For that argument to work, you have to say why it's better there, and why that benefit would translate over to this page. As a minor point, the WPGB is likely going to stand more than one candidate, as George Galloway has said he plans to stand a candidate at least in Angela Rayner's constituency. --TedEdwards 19:48, 24 March 2024 (UTC) @DimensionalFusion: I understand you don't want to further participate in this discussion, but I do feel the need to mention I made a mistake in my above reply, as it clearly gave you the wrong impression. When I said the leaders and leaders' seats are not pertinent, I intended to say the leaders' portraits and leaders' seats are not pertinent. Apologies for this. --TedEdwards 13:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm just going to say why I prefer TIE over TILE.
TIE is used in every previous UK general election page and for very good reason. It displays important information- Leader, Party, Leader since, Leader's seat, Last election seats, and seats required for majority. The important thing about an infobox is to quickly display the basics of the election to provide the important context for the election article. TIE does this by showing the main parties. TILE does not do this, as it shows only 3 pieces of information- parties, leaders, and current seats.
The benefit of TIE over TILE is very clear. TIE shows the major players in an election, which again provides important context for the runup. TILE does not offer this, it only shows a list of all parties.
TIE is used in other pages because it's clear upon a simple glance who the major players are.
You say the leaders and leaders' seats are not pertinent - if this is the case why does TILE also include leaders?
What's the point of using TILE in the run-up to an election when it's obviously going to be changed once an election is done?
DimensionalFusion (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Surely the point of using TILE pre-election and TIE post- (as has been made multiple times) is that TIE excludes some parties and therefore fails "Crystal Ball" when it comes to knowing which parties will prove successful/significant, as well as risks editorialising for the same reason; especially with a subject as unpredictable and volatile as British politics.
Is there really that much of a problem with using TILE for now and shifting to TIE when the results are in? We're talking about a matter of months. OGBC1992 (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@OGBC1992 You make a good point and I can't really be bothered to argue my point anymore, so ykyk
DimensionalFusion (talk) 13:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
TILE just looks ugly and I don't believe it should be used when an election is so well documented. That's all I have to say. TheBritinator (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

background

Surly there should be some better worded etc to state election was suppose to have taken place by 2nd may 2024 because of the Fix term act but its seems to be completely diluted. Would it not be better to revised it to say:

The next election is scheduled to be held no later than 28 January 2025,[1] with Parliament being dissolved no later than 17 December 2024. The date falls on a Tuesday, and there is a convention that British general elections are held on Thursdays, but this is not a strict requirement of the law.[2] The election of 1931 was held on a Tuesday, and all UK general elections held since 1935 have been held on Thursdays.

Originally the next election was scheduled to take place on 2 May 2024, however the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 was repealed under the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022, thus The incumbent prime minister can choose to call an earlier election,

The results of the 2019 general election are given below, alongside the current etc etc etc etc etc Crazyseiko (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So Kevin McE removed a long section in 2022 (see [1]) mentioning what the lastest possible date of the election pre-FPA repeal, after a message on the talk page (see here) saying he thought the text they eventually removed was rambling. I replied encouraging them to make a bold edit. However I assume they, like me, probably don't think the text you added is irrelevant or rambling, which was the issue rather than mentioning the date, but I'm bringing this to their attention anyway.
For future reference Crazyseiko, to ensure any references appear at the bottom of a section in a talk page, where they are needed (rather than the bottom of the page), use {{Reflist-talk}}.--TedEdwards 19:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It still seems totally superfluous, and would not pass the ten year test. It was always the govt's intention to repeal the FPA, so all this says is that if a law that was always going to have been changed hadn't been changed it would have been been on this date. By the time the election was meaningfully on anyone's horizon, 2nd May was not outstanding among any list of potential election dates. As May has become less likely, I haven't heard any commentators mention that 2nd May becoming very unlikely has any significance. Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kevin McE: I'll admit what you've said is pretty convincing actually. --TedEdwards 20:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference HC was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "Why are British elections always held on Thursdays?", The Guardian, accessed 23 February 2024

New infobox proposal

I propose a new infobox. Feel free to edit it.

Suggested infobox
Next United Kingdom general election
← 2019 2 May 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons
326 seats needed for a majority
  First party Second party
 
Leader Rishi Sunak Keir Starmer
Party Conservative Labour
Leader since 24 October 2022 4 April 2020
Leader's seat Richmond (Yorks) Holborn and St Pancras
  Third party Fourth party
 
Leader Humza Yousaf Ed Davey
Party SNP Liberal Democrats
Leader since 29 March 2023 27 August 2020
Prime Minister before election

Liz Truss
Conservative

Elected Prime Minister

TBD

trainrobber >be me 14:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, for all the reasons outlined by @TedEdwardsfurther up this page. OGBC1992 (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok trainrobber >be me 18:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Idk about that one, I think it's more easily laid out Imo. trainrobber >be me 18:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
There is no reason to have a large map of constituencies in the infobox. We've previously agreed on election pages not to show maps without any results. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Thursday 6th June

Can we put that in somewhere, as the date ? Or as the "possible date" ? French government source (my brother) tells me that Mr Sunak is going for that date. How he knows.. I dont know but there it is. Bon chance a tous !! 92.184.98.226 (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but your brother is not what we would consider to be a reliable source. — Czello (music) 21:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

How can this page even have Possible dates section?

If anyone has been keep tabs of possible dates its like nearly EVERY SINGLE possible Thursday has now been suggested in the media and were now going around to cover them, we had 31st Oct, then we 7th, 14th and 21st Nov, then the speculation was on May, because of hold up - it was clear that was being looked at. Then we got 10th Oct, 17th October, but then we got reports he got fed up and might just go for June, or the party will go bang. Now were back in Nov, Im sure were see Sept and Oct creap back in again next week. It like every government minster or MP and his dog is suggested a Thursday in 2024. It's an illusion hidden in plan sight. Crazyseiko (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Former MPs seeking to return to Parliament section: Why?

What's the justification for this section? Why should these candidates be any more remarkable than any others? Do we need a section on Olympic madalists seeing to enter Parliament? Past or present members of local councils seeking to enter Parliament? People employed in public ervices seeking to enter Parliament?

And do we have to list every sitting MP who hopes to return in this section between the dissolution of parliament and the election itself, as they will then all be former MPs?

Relevant for their individual biographical articles? Yes. Meaningful as a list here? No. Kevin McE (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it’s particularly irrelevant, certainly not in comparison to the examples you have given (Olympians etc.) as it’s an article specifically about electing people to the House of Commons, and these are individuals that have already served there at least once.
I see it as justified within the Candidates section, as with the other three lists. OGBC1992 (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I would think that to many people beyond the constituencies themselves James Cracknell's candidature would be much more interesting than that of Gareth Snell or Luke Graham
'Not particularly irrelevant' seems an extraordinarily low thresh hold.
All four lists look like gross recentism to me, but particularly this one. I do not believe that WP:10YEARTEST would be passed. Kevin McE (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

MPs not standing for election

The section on this article lists 97 MPs who are standing down; this BBC article however states there are 100. Anyone know which three we're missing? It appears to be two Tories and one SNP. OGBC1992 (talk) 14:24, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The BBC link provided shows a 404 for me. I assume it's this article? Boardwalk.Koi (talk) 14:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
That’s going to 404 too.
Article here: [2] OGBC1992 (talk) 15:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
The BBC's probably has the same party numbers as the Institute for Government list.
The SNP count in the Number of MP retirements by party affiliation table seems to be wrong so I've corrected totals. There may have been some confusion over Lisa Cameron.
The two Tories seem to be Stuart Andrew and Jamie Wallis, who've both said they won't stand in their current constituency. The IfG includes them on their list. On Wikipedia, they were both included on the "Seeking new constituency list" instead but were recently removed. I know Wallis was apparently actively seeking a new seat as of March. [3] [4] I'm not sure if they should be listed anywhere yet. FRBST (talk) 16:01, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Maps

Should we include maps with equal areas for constituencies rather than actual geography? Small, densely populated constituencies are all but invisible on a conventional map. The map we currently have for the notional 2019 results addresses this by expanding some areas but it is quite complicated, with 18 zoomed areas of different types and sizes. An equal area map would be simpler and also help to explain the relative importance of, say, London and Scotland. For a comparison of basic and equal area maps, see this tweet @ElectionMapsUK (15 May 2024). "General Election Nowcast" (Tweet) – via Twitter. Cavrdg (talk) 13:28, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

An equal-area map such as a hexagon map would do the job much better. The zoom-box maps are not good data visualisation. The area taken up by each constituency still varies massively, it's covered in cluttered lines and text that make it significantly less clear. We should have both a straightforward geographic map and one equal-area map which contain no text or extraneous details. Ralbegen (talk) 16:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Election announcement

The announcement is happening soon, when it happens we can update the article. No need to edit war over it. Stifle (talk) 15:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't WP:CRYSTALBALL. The press are getting pinged from cabinet ministers but Sunak could theoretically get stage fright and bottle it again. Until the words leave the PM's lips, we don't update the article. Wikipedia doesn't announce elections before the government. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
No. Read WP:PRIMARY. We announce something based on what reliable secondary sources say. We don't wait for a primary source. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Bondezegouu, we also update wikipedia pages when media sources have some results, even though it's not the official electoral commission. Thomediter (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, secondary sources speculating isn't better than a primary source which isn't. Just because something is secondary doesn't make it manna sent from heaven. I'm saying that we should only update using news sources which have happened after No. 10's announcement. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
No, sources are saying it is "expected". See BBC News for example. That's not sufficient to start putting dates in fields etc. Just wait, there really is no hurry on this and we'll probably know al lot more in the coming hours.
OK, now it's confirmed as 4 July. Have at it. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Yep. This should have been the start of the edits, but hey-ho. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2024

Date has been set for july 4tg

 Not done - Not just yet it hasn't. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Tim O'Doherty Reopen this asit's now official. BSMIsEditing (talk) 16:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't need to. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 Already done M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@M.Bitton
The campaign section refers to the morning of the 22nd suggesting this is for the announcement and not the inflation news, clarification of the timeline would be made 2A02:C7C:59B0:8F00:5426:1584:174B:635C (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible Date of election AGAIN

It seems that one person has more control over this page than every one else, and wont even speak with us. Kevin removed which I have reinstated:

  • In the six weeks before the May local elections, a number of political commentators made statements that an election would be called for June, due to continuing issues around Sunak's authority.[1][2][3]However, a June election was seen as less likely following the elections, because the Conservatives had retained the Tees Valley mayoralty.[4][5][6][7]

The simple fact is If he think it all speculation then the bit about May needs to come out SO do the Universities warning about not having enough time. There was only ever going to be six rough date, I did write a short piece on here and agree overall we can't have EVERY SINGLE Thursday as possible date, but there is six Thursdays were it is possible and we should be looking at them. The same user isn't happy about "Predictions one month/week before the vote" even thought it been done for the past 5 election pages, so I can see another flash point coming. Crazyseiko (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please enumerate the "number of political commentators" in the first paragraph. Looking at the citations, I count one.
Please clarify the logical link between a Conservative mayor retaining his post and the diminishing probability of a June election.
Please desist from making attacks on individual editors. I claim no more authority here than anyone else, and am trying, as I assume all others are, to make the article best fit its purpose as an accurate, verifiable and encyclopaedic record of enduring relevance. I have frequently posted on this talk page, so your accusation is inaccurate. Kevin McE (talk) 08:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for reply, And highlighting the issues you have with the above statement. I will double check the above citations, however Numerous people in podcast and in legitimate media outlets made the same independent claim, I but I will revised teh ref included. Secondly link to Tees vally major and diminishing probability of a June election was in part to numerous report that if both were lost there would be trouble as seen here

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sunak-labour-tory-local-elections-tees-valley-west-midlands-b2535347.html https://www.politicshome.com/news/article/ben-houchen-and-tees-valley-danger-for-rishi-sunak

Sunak is on the record saying he would call an election if there was moves to replace him. However the other point I made " Most of the rebels now believe, sunak needs to own the loses which have accrued from the local election" was taken out which is actually the more important point reported. I shall taken your third on on broad. I will double check everything this evening or tomorrow at lastest and provide a revised statement here, and we can then move forward. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


  • Please found the revised statement with revised ref:

In the six weeks before the May local elections, a number of political commentators made statements that an election would be called for June, due to continuing issues around Sunak's authority. [8][9]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[10][11] Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Following the results of the 2024 United Kingdom local elections,in which Conservatives lost nearly 500 councillor but were able to retained the Tees Valley mayoralty, the Majority of the rebels decided that Sunak would need to own the loses which have accrued from these results thus a leadership challenge did not materialise, which resulted in Sunak been given some breathing space to call election for the Autumn .[12][13][14][15] [16] Following these events, the liberal democrats table no confidence vote in Government[17][18]

There is no value in this speculation and it doesn't represent mainstream scholarship or the balance of sources. Of course, as the days roll by the media will print speculation about the date being this one or that one, with various reasons offered - they have to fill their pages after all - but there is no evidence of any sort of concrete knowledge of when the election might be, and it doesn't warrant inclusion until the date is known with more certainty.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Then there NO value in section about May election OR how Autumn election MAY might effect students as that is also speculation, this has to come out. --Crazyseiko (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
IT seems the uni sentence REALLY was speculation as it has NO baring or relation to this election as there closed for months. I would like to See a note put in about how it the start Scottish and Northern Ireland School holidays which might effect some people. Maybe to come to common ground about putting back in the talk what most political commentary said for the past 3 months, Sunak had to either go for MAY or summer election, We now know there were heading in the right direction. I doubt we could every put in a bit saying how people were surprised and stil expected Auttum election --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Buchan, Lizzy (2024-04-22). "BBC's Laura Kuenssberg fuels general election fever with snap poll theory". The Mirror. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  2. ^ BBC's Newscast 21 April 2024
  3. ^ Times radio: Politic podcast: 31 March 2024, 6 April and 18 April
  4. ^ "Rishi Sunak needs to own Tory election defeats and change course, says Suella Braverman". BBC News. 2024-05-05. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  5. ^ Mason, Rowena (2024-05-05). "Suella Braverman says no time to oust Sunak so he must 'own this and fix it'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  6. ^ "'Tories crushed' as 'rebels kill plot to oust Sunak'". BBC News. 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  7. ^ Riley-Smith, Ben (2024-05-05). "No 10 'shelves plan for summer general election'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  8. ^ Buchan, Lizzy (2024-04-22). "BBC's Laura Kuenssberg fuels general election fever with snap poll theory". The Mirror. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  9. ^ BBC's Newscast 21 April 2024
  10. ^ Times radio: Politic podcast: 18 April: "Adam Boulton" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWx5wKzIhzQ&ab_channel=TimesRadio
  11. ^ https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/june-general-election-how-likely-sunak-confidence-vote-2981858
  12. ^ "Rishi Sunak needs to own Tory election defeats and change course, says Suella Braverman". BBC News. 2024-05-05. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  13. ^ Mason, Rowena (2024-05-05). "Suella Braverman says no time to oust Sunak so he must 'own this and fix it'". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  14. ^ "'Tories crushed' as 'rebels kill plot to oust Sunak'". BBC News. 2024-05-03. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  15. ^ Crerar, Pippa (2024-05-06). "Tory rebels call time on leadership challenge as Sunak limps on".
  16. ^ Riley-Smith, Ben (2024-05-05). "No 10 'shelves plan for summer general election'". The Telegraph. ISSN 0307-1235. Retrieved 2024-05-07.
  17. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/06/lib-dems-no-confidence-vote-june-election/
  18. ^ https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/uks-lib-dem-party-submit-no-confidence-motion-pm-rishi-sunaks-government-2024-05-06/#:~:text=LONDON%2C%20May%206%20(Reuters),ruling%20Conservatives%20in%20local%20polls.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_Kingdom_general_election/Archive_1&oldid=1226471485"