Talk:2010 United Kingdom general election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Post Leadership Election

I've eddited some of the Labour Leadership stuff - I don't think that McDonnell's views are especially relevant here anymore, although they should be in the article on the Labour Leadership election, so I've trimmed some of them out. I've also changed the text refering to GB supporting a "New World Order", as I think this has specific neocon connotations that may not be an exact reflection on his position. I've replaced it with "internationalism" although I know its weak! If someone has a reference with GB stating his support for the "New World Order" then please revert and add it in... 195.33.105.17 11:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Getting ready for the next one

OK I may be sad, but I thought I'd get this one going. I don't really understand the templates though for the table - shouldn't they be more generic to allow customisation for year etc?? ChrisUK 22:40, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've figured it out now! changed table to show 2005 as a starting point

these comments are all pointless, i want a general election tomorrow, when will it happen? any guesses, my guess is that nobody would emerge as a clear leader in any of the three parties. in my esteemed opinion, the house of commons should be abandoned, the house is unstable undemocratic and was set up by cromwell. as the true monarchy has been re established, there is no need for the first past the post system that has bound the british constitution for 300 years. elizabeth ii has no power to give the power that she claims to be given, and tony blair has effectively and will continue to try to write out the true british constitution which gives full power to the monarch, binding articles of the constitution and the house of lords. i am sick of reading this shit. fuck the house of commons.

crystal ball

Is this not a crystal bal from beginning to end? I realise that it admits the date is speculative (thus the title is misleading) - but much more is speculative. Bye-elections may change party numbers. The boundary commission review will change constituencies - and perhaps even numbers of constituencies. Parties may change. Voting methods and procedures may change. What can this article offer that isn’t in more general articles on UK politics – or is it just a holding article for who knows how long? --Doc Glasgow 23:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree with most of your points and I have spoken out strongly before when people have used wikipedia for speculative future research etc. This is largely a place holder but there could be a couple of key amendments:

* change the name of the article to 'The next United Kingdom general election' which barring any unforseen changes in UK constitution will definitely happen (and if it doesnt there will be a huge number of new articles to supercede this one!) . This also provides a scaleable way to move forward since there will always hopefully be a next one.

* add references to the table to point out that this is based on 2005. The article can then be updated and maintained as things like parties, boundaries, procedures etc change over the next 5 years. ChrisUK 23:25, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a very difficult article to name, as their is no requirment to hold the election in 2009. Tony Blair/Gordon Brown/John Reid/Mr X could hold a snap elction in 2007/8 if they so wish. But

You might be interested to see the fight there was over the 2005 general election page, which was originally put up back in 2004, and argued against as "pure speculation"... Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/UK general election, 2005. The date can't hurt, although personally I'd call it 2009/10 rather than 2010. And, heck, look at U.S. presidential election, 2008... Shimgray 01:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think it might be a little too speculative. US elections do at least have fixed terms, and at the moment there's really nothing of value to be said about the next British general election. -- Gregg 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Naming

It's picky, but this should probably be at United Kingdom general election, 2010 (or 2009/10) - the problem is, that page is in use. Anyone know how to do the move? Shimgray 01:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems to me that giving this a date is wrong - UK electiosn are not fixed - this election must be held by 2010 - but technically it could be in 2005 and probably it will be in 2009. Rename as 'future United Kingdom general election' or something like --Doc Glasgow 08:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

A few hours ago somebody changed the info box to read "2007 General UK General Election", which I have undone as it is at the present time far from certain that it will take place in 2007. Dobong 04:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Last possible date

The new Parliament has been summoned to meet on Wednesday 11th May 2005. It can last up to five years, so will expire at or by midnight on Monday 10th May 2010. The Septennial Act, as commonly understood, requires writs for the election of a new Parliament to be issued before the current one expires, so they would have to be issued on that day at the latest. The election would be held seventeen working days after that - accounting for the Spring Bank Holiday, that means the next general election must take place on or before 3rd June 2010 (which, coincidentally, happens to be a Thursday). (All of this assumes no change in the law, etc.) -- Gregg 06:07, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I was about to put up the (correctly named) page in the 2009 slot as the likely date on past history is 11-6-2009 when checking came across this little crystal ball. This far ahead it is pointless and (imho) misleading to readers to put up tables etc that will not get used for probably four years (the present majority will be sufficient to not need a vote of confidence call which is the only likely cause of an early GE) and Mediawiki markup for tables, etc. may change before then. I believe the present article includes some POV and is mostly hypothetical. Anything which is not confirmable and demonstrable now as a matter of record should be deleted, and the page moved to United Kingdom general election, 2009 which is the most likely target. --Vamp:Willow 11:39, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Move

looking at the above and the posting date/time on requested moves, I'm doing this now. --Vamp:Willow 11:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Number of seats

There won't be 646 seats. The review of seats in England will recommend approx 534 seats (instead of 529) so there'll be around 651 seats at the election.

Well, please be bold and update it! If you have a link to a website with more information, please give that as well. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:07, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

2009 - Super Thursday?

It is interesting that people are speculating an election in 2009 without mentioning the very real possibility of a "super Thursday" - the European Parliamentary Elections are set for 2009, as are the County Council elections in England. If Tony Blair, or indeed Gordon Brown, decides to call an election in 2009 there could be 2 national elections on the same day, as well as the local fights.

Other people are quite right to mention the boundary changes. These should be in place by 2009/10. In some areas, such as Cornwall and Lancashire, the Commission have added an extra seat, but in Merseyside and Manchester seats have been taken away. It's likely that the total number of seats across the UK will stay around 648-653 when all the seats are finalised. Wales has no change, although three seats are abolished and re-drawn. Northern Ireland has a new seat of "Antrim Coast And Glens" due.

Liam/Doktorb dok 06:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

That's not a new seat - it's just a renaming of the East Antrim seat if the Glens are added to it (which is a silly move in itself). A new seat would be like the 1997 changes when the number was increased to 18 (although in a strange way the new West Tyrone contained more of the old Mid Ulster than the new one - which was the "new" seat?!). Timrollpickering 15:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

And the name East Antrim survives in the revised recommendations that contain rather less of the Glens. Timrollpickering 16:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's obvious that Tony Blair is going as Prime Minister as he said, probably Summer Recess 2008 as Labour Leader and Christmas Recess 2009 as Prime Minister; I suppose it's always possible that his last act as Prime Minister could be to seek a dissolution and so fully complete his third term but I imagine that the most likely thing is that Gordon Brown will take over, shift the Council Elections to the same day as the EU Elections and hold the General Election on that day so as to maximise Labour turnout in the EU and Council Elections, I imagine most of the parties standing will be much the same as in 2001 - there is a new party called Spectre that has been formed by some opponents of the Iraq War notably Reg Keys who stood against Tony Blair in Sedgefield as an Independent last time, whether Veritas will put up candidates or not is not clear, candidates are already being selected by the main parties, I imagine the legislation to institute the new boundaries will pass next year and come into effect in 2008 - a lot of changes in Sheffield (I happen to know this because some of my relatives live in Sheffield) Crookes seems to be going into Sheffield Central and there is a new seat of Sheffield South East. Ed Balls is still hopeful of not having to find a new seat although the Boundary Commission has completed it's final reports and it is now down to parliament and the courts, anyway what will happen will happen--Lord of the Isles 00:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Title (a)

There has obviously been some disagreement over the title before. Since this election could happen at any time up until 2010, so it could happen as soon as this year even, would it not be best to use a number to identify it? The Umpteenth UK general election, whatever number general election it is.

I think that would be an even bigger can of worms. --Bonalaw 14:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly. It'll be the 54th United Kingdom general election, electing members to the 55th Parliament (The reason for the numbers being off-set is that the 1st UK Parliament was inherited from pre-Act of Union, and so the 1st UK general elected the 2nd UK Parliament. This naming format is used elsewhere, eg 30th Irish general election, 60th Nova Scotia general election. The Tom 23:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

While it's very common to talk of the 43rd President or the 43rd COngress in America the UK Parliament is never described in such terms. So I really wonder about using a lable that would be meaningless to the country concerned.Alci12 15:13, 21 December 2005(UTC)

Actually there could be something in this. Until Blair/Brown calls the election, Wiki can't "crystal ball" in having a title like "2009/10", it's not encyclopedic. I suggest it stays with the 54th title until the election is called, then move it to the right date when the call is made. Makes sense to have a title explainging the 54th General Election until the right date is known.

I would not support moves to keep the name as 54th. doktorb | words 19:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I think having it here is a clever solution. Better than having slashes in the name, anyway. Morwen - Talk 14:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I really don't like it. "54th" is pretty much meaningless to everyone but the most ardent political history buffs. I came across this article as a see also in the David Cameron article and, even with the clue of Cameron, still had to click to but sure what it meant. Next UK general election would be better if slashes are unwelcome. Pcb21 Pete 20:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree on this. Whilst 54th may be technically correct, even most professional political commentators will be scratching their heads on this. Not having fixed parliaments is a problem, but surely something about "the next election" conveys the content far more easily. Timrollpickering 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted Text

Deleted the following text - it reads as text written from the immediate perspective of 2005 which may not have much relevance either in this entry as all, or at least not in the Boundary Changes chpater. It could have its place in the 2005 article.

In the 2005 general election, in England, 72,544 more people (0.3%) voted for the Conservative party than the Labour party, and yet Labour returned 92 more seats in England than the Conservatives did. This is an example of how the First Past the Post electoral system used with the current constituencies distorts the result, currently in favour of the Labour party. Boundary changes may create a more equitable distribution of seats to votes, or alternatively create an advantage for the Conservatives an or the Liberal Democrats.

doktorb 15:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Surely an article about the next general election should reflect on the results of the previous? I say that should be reinstated to the article. Rob.derosa 07:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but the deleted text seems to be somewhat POV, for one, and written from a perspective which does not fit with an article leading up to 2009...doktorb _words^deeds 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well its a fact; the Tories recieved more votes in England than Labour, yet recieved 92 seats less than them. It's worth pointing out, party to explain the reasons behind the boundary changes. And dont forget, its relevant because Labour will still have 92 seats more than the Tories up until the day of the next election! Rob.derosa 07:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Boundary Commission don't change the boundaries just to create a situation where the party with the most votes has the most seats. The reasons for the difference are as much to do with the turnout in Labour seats traditionally being much lower than because of some distortions in the distribution of boundaries. Indeed some of the distortions (e.g. the rule that only two London boroughs can be combined, whereas counties can be considered as a whole, making it easier to create undersized {Labour} seats in inner London than Conservative seats in the counties) still exist and no amount of tinkering with boundaries will remove them. Timrollpickering 15:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The deleted text from above is wrong anyway; according to the article on the 2005 general elections Labour had 790.000 more votes than the Conservatives. --89.59.27.248 08:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not wrong, that's across the whole UK. In England, the Conservatives received more votes than Labour. Richard B 08:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Polls

Can we get rid of the polls please! Its far too soon for them to have any real relevence to the election, and as a clone of the data on www.electoralcalculus.co.uk they can be replaced with a link to that website for those who are interested in the data. --Neo 18:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. They are overwhelmingly premature in my opinion. I've removed them from the article. Talrias (t | e | c) 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Put a graph in, much less obrtusive than a table, and does not require its own section. Useful because a snap election could be called after Blair departs. Rob.derosa 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing calculations

Yesterday I posted confirmed calculations for the boundary changes only to find they have been deleted today. Can I ask why? Harry Hayfield 10:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They were original research which is against policy doktorb | words 10:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so what happens when the same calculations are available elsewhere online Harry Hayfield 18:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

There is still a shortage of refrences.--86.29.247.234 03:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Swing needed by the Tories

This article claims a 6.34% swing from Labour to Tory is needed for the Tories to gain a majority in the Commons yet this BBC article claims that, including boundary changes, the Tories would "still need a 9% or 10% swing to get an overall majority - rather than the 11% swing they need under the current rules." Are the BBC wrong? Is wikipedia right? What claim should be in the article?--Johnbull 00:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all much of a muchness. The Tories could have gained a majority in Parliament at the last election if their votes and Labour's had been distributedly differently around the country, and could do so at the next one even if there's a national swing to Labour. The location of votes matters more than the number. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.7.163.134 (talk • contribs)

All this talk of swing is bunkum especially starting from a situation in which the Labour and Conservative vote combined in 2005 was only 67.5% of the popular vote, in 1951 and 1955 certainly on the British Mainland the story was about Labour and Conservative and so swing based analysis could be very accurate but in a situation in which there are Nationalist Parties with seats and in contention in others and smaller parties such as Respect, UKIP, KHHC who have emerged to contend for seats really make such swing based analysis irrelevant - these smaller parties can take significant numbers of votes off larger parties locally sharply altering final outcomes nationally.

However as there is a mention of this and given that it is just English boundaries now to be finalised and other than the possible exception of Ed Balls current seat (and it has to be said it seems unlikely that the court will overturn the Boundary Commissions decision) is pretty much certain to be passed as is, if there is going to be a mention of swing based analysis then at the very least it might include the Liberal Democrats in some kind of 3 way table and be based on the new Boundaries (even including the 1 or 2 that are still in dispute), although I would be inclined to leave it out and rather just have links to seat calculators elsewhere on the internet. --Lord of the Isles 22:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Post-election article

Wondering what will happen to most of the current content of the article when the election is history, not a future event. Is anyone planning for this? How much will be worth preserving, eg in separate subtopic articles? Laurel Bush 10:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

To be honest Laurel, with 3, 4 or more years before the election is likely to be called, the last thing any of us should be worried about is what to do after the thing is over! Looking at the 2005 articles, the splits could happen like that, but to be honest and fair with you, let us deal with 2009/10 before going any further doktorb _words^deeds 11:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure it will evolve over time with events, at some point in the next 9 months Tony Blair will go as Labour leader and then within a year it will be known who the new Labour leader is, more MP's will say whether they are standing or not, as it comes closer to the General Election the policy positions that the parties stand on will become clearer, the same could be said about articles on living people - a description about someone could later change radically as hidden information became available or that person changed completely. It seems unlikely short of a national emergency that it will be 4 or more years to the next General Election, after all it's been 1.5 years since the last one so for it to do so would require using seldom used means to extend the life of parliament. The Labour Parties shortage of money and the fact that Labour will want to maximise turnout in the Local and European Elections make Super Thursday in June 2009 for all 3 elections the most probable outcome, so far as what happens to the article that depends on what happens, a lot no doubt will be kept as a background to the run up to the election.--Lord of the Isles 18:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As soon as a date is known, we will need an article with a title which includes the date. I suggest we do not move this article to the new title, because the title of this article is one that will be wanted again immediately after the now forthcoming election. Laurel Bush 09:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

That suggests the need for a copy + paste move which may cause its own problems. I know what you mean but I think we should wait until the election is called doktorb _words^deeds 10:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, why not simply move this to "UK Election 2009" or whatever, and then create a new page with this name stating that due to Parliament Acts 1911/1949 there must be an election held before 2014. Rob.derosa 00:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems probable that the next General Election will be in 2009 because aside from 1966 early elections have had mixed successes and although it worked for Harold Wilson in 1966 and October 1974 when he could argue he needed a majority and was in a minority, in 1970 though and for Edward Heath in February 1974 it worked out very badly, in 1951 it could be said that Labour was unlucky to lose the election given it was actually the highest percentage of those eligible to vote to vote for any one party since Universal Suffrage. Early elections usually require a reason and the government can easily end up being described as cutting and running whereas one going the full 5 years can lead to accusations that they are clinging on to power, but even so to put it as 2009 in the title surely amounts to POV?--Lord of the Isles 09:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This article used to be UK general election 2009/10. This was changed because people didn't like having the "slash" in the title, amongst other things. I would leave the article as it is, then when the election is called, move the relevant stuff to a new article with the date in the title, and use this for a "holding article" for the 2013/14/15 election? doktorb _words^deeds 09:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am thinking about "next election" as a link in other articles. How can we work now stop such links becoming links to an article about the wrong election? Laurel Bush 14:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

Next UK General Election rather than simply next election will be best because after all there are Council by-elections every week and by the time of the next General Election if it is in 2009 there will have probably been parliamentary and other By-elections, as well as two more Local Elections and devolved elections in London, Scotland, Wales and probably Northern Ireland as well; also in other parts of the world - so it is best to use a name for the link that says that it was UK and a General Election to avoid any possible confusion. You could put "probably 2009" in the text appearing for the link, this would indicate what timescale it was referring to so even if it happened in 2008 or 2010 people would still know what it referred to, although of course it is always possible that there might be more than one General Election in the next year with a General Election, probably there will be a clear result - it seems improbable Labour will lose their majority in 2009--Lord of the Isles 15:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is is a commonly accepted numbering system (1st, 2nd, 3rd etc.) re elections to the Commons. Is the relevant number now a redirect to the current 'next election' article? Available as a simple or piped link? Laurel Bush 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC).

I think there are a few issues here already dealt with when the name became an issue originally.

This article was once "United Kingdom general election 2009/10" which was then changed to "54th United Kingdom general election", which was panned as being totally inappropriate. This article title was then chosen as a suitable comprimise. There are bound to be tons of redirects because of the name changes.

What we need to do now, in my opinion, is use "Next United Kingdom general election" as the title for an as yet non-called election (such as, if you follow me, the next one). When the election is called, CREATE a new article for that election, leaving this for the run-up to the subsequent election. doktorb _words^deeds 15:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Laurel: Yes; there is a redirect at 54th United Kingdom general election. Personally, I would strongly recommend that incoming links use that redirect, so that they still link to the correct article after the election takes place. Probably best not to pipe so that the link doesn't date. For info, there are a few more incoming redirects:

• United Kingdom general election of 2010
• United Kingdom general election, 2010
• United Kingdom general election, 2009/10 (this one has several dozen incoming links)
• United Kingdom general election, 2009
• Next UK general election

The pattern for post-election article names is United Kingdom general election, 1910 (December) (there were two in 1910) There are only a few articles that will need to link directly to Next United Kingdom general election (they are mostly navigation box templates and generic electoral procedure articles) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative might be to add a line for the next General Election to the United Kingdom general elections article saying no later than 2010 for the date and maybe linking to that article which at least when it was updated would have the date of the General Election on it, and then at some point the link could be changed to link to the actual page for that specific General Election?--Lord of the Isles 12:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me we should reconsider the idea of using "54th United Kingdom general election" as the article title. It would making an editor's life a lot easier. Laurel Bush 15:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)>

That's a complete non-starter. No-one calls UK elections in those terms, and to be fair, you'd have to re-name (and re-direct) all the other election articles. doktorb _words^deeds 16:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Parliament Act

It is important to note that the 1949 Parliament Act was actually passed as an extension to the 1911 Parliament Act using the 1911 Parliament Act, in fact the House of Commons has the power to amend the Parliament Acts using the Parliament Acts and so any existing provisions could in fact be removed or extended, not only that but the Major Government also introduced the Deregulation & Contracting Out Act which completely bypasses the House of Lords and can be used to remove bits of bills, or even whole swathes of legislation, it's just a matter of getting the phrases right - Tony Benn attempted to use it to abolish all Trade Union Legislation since 1979, it has even been argues that any bill signed by the monarch is legislation regardless of it's origin and also that the 1949 Parliament Act is illegal - the Royal Perogative has been used on many occasions to bypass parliament completely, rather a mess really - the British Constitution, I see the government is now considering abolishing the Salisbury Convention but like a lot of the rest of British Law it's a convention and different courts would give different opinions on the matter.--Lord of the Isles 16:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The Parliament Act 1949 was found to be legal after challanges were made by Earl Onslow et al. And the Parliament, and its derived powers from the Monarch, can be simply seen as an extension of the Royal Perogative; the Queen holds all theoretical power, she is just allowing the Government to exercise it in Parliament. Rob.derosa 00:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Co-operative Party

Many of Labour's MP's are actually Co-operative Party, a party that since 1918 has taken the Labour Whip and they do not run candidates against each other and yet they are to some extent a seperate party - the National Liberals are mentioned seperately to the Conservative Party in past elections in which they stood, surely it is an anomaly where they are mentioned seperately and the Liberals and SDP which were if anything more seperate than the National Liberals and Conservatives were and are mentioned together in past election articles - the statistics usually are presented this way but the actual numbers are out there and can be totted up for individual candidates. It's not that I am saying that they should be mentioned as 2 seperate parties but the anomaly bothers me.--Lord of the Isles 19:44, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I know of no media source which separates the two. Frankly it is so rare for Labour/Co-op MPs to be separated in stats that I wouldn't start to worry about it. doktorb _words^deeds 15:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Ann Widdecombe

Regarding Ann Widdecombe retiring, she had said she was going to retire at the next General Election but since on television and radio she has in her attacks on David Cameron's A List policy objected to the notion that as she puts it "some bimbo" from the A List might be put in to her fight her seat next time and that she was reconsidering, there are some signs that some senior Conservatives - especially ones from Cornerstone Group and Better Off Out and those who see the A List as being positive action who had been thinking of retiring are considering hanging on simply to block the entry of A List candidates. Not that I'm saying her name shouldn't be in, but it is possible she may announce she is changing her mind.--Lord of the Isles 16:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Citation re George Galloway MP

Can I ask where it has been stated that George Galloway MP (Respect, Bethnal Green and Bow) has announced his retirement from the Commons? Harry Hayfield 16:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

See article listed next to it Shock win for Galloway in London - 13th paragraph. Apparently he intends to run for the European Parliament as well, if you look in BBC News you will find another article that says this although that does not come within the scope of this article and it would not automatically exclude him from running for parliament again if he were actually elected but this appears always to have been his gameplan from the very start he was running for Bethnal Green and Bow.--Lord of the Isles 10:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• Galloway stated on his national radio show 2 weeks ago that he would stay on if proportional representation were introduced in the UK; I know that it's rather unlikely that either of the two dominant parties would release their electoral stranglehold over the system, especially before the 2009/10 election, but I thought that I would just mention it --It's-is-not-a-genitive 16:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

For the record, he has now announced that he is to run for Poplar and Limehouse [1] and so technically can't be counted as standing down at the next General Election.--Lord of the Isles 10:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hence why I removed him from the list of those standing down. The citation from the BBC website does mention that he changed his mind about not standing following the suspension from the Commons. Richard B 12:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought it best to mention him in case someone read this section and linked articles, and concluded from it that he should be included in the list and didn't realise that he would be standing for a different seat.--Lord of the Isles 17:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Housekeeping

I have pared off the boundary change stuff to Boundary change recommondations for the next UK general election to help keep this article within good size, er, boundaries =)...It was getting too large and I think this helps.

I have asked User:Harry Hayfield to consider cutting back the Target List as it makes the article appear unmanageable.

doktorb _words^deeds 07:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Top 10 targets for main parties

I dont understand this - is the 'Winning Party' the notional winning party after the Boundary Changes came into effect? Because in the Lib Dem targets is Solihull. They won Solihull at the last election!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TFoxton (talk • contribs) .

Not only that but where do these targets come from, surely Bethnal Green and Bow is going to be one of Labour's main targets as it was very marginal last time (and notionally is now even closer between Labour and Respect) and taken by someone who had been an MP previously and who will not be standing next time and the Iraq War is not the issue it was. Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat strategies may well see their main targets differently from how it appears to a third party observer because policy changes can alter the distribution of votes--Lord of the Isles 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Are they last years? They certainly need updating --TFoxton 18:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

They are this years, and based on Boundary Changes. Solihull is technically a Conservative seat based on the votes of last year on the new boundaries. If you look at Boundary change recommondations for the next UK general election you can see other seats which have changed hands due to boundary changes doktorb _words^deeds 06:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of renaming this "Top 10 marginals" rather than "targets". The actual seats parties choose to target will depend on the selected candidates, performance in local elections, how "hard" or "soft" another party's vote is considered to be etc etc. These seats with tiny majorities are DEFINITELY marginal but they are not necessarily "targets". Esquimo 15:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to add an extra column with the sitting MP to the table? 217.42.218.78 (talk) 11:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blair standing down

Announcing that a sitting MP is standing down is a formal thing in the Labour Party, and Tony Blair has not made such an announcement. Having John Burton say something is not good enough. I have therefore removed him from the list. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and if Tony Blair has not announced he is standing down, then he cannot go on a list of MPs who have announced they are standing down. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 14:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

His election agent though is the one person who he will tell because it is vital that he knows these things, there are procedures for registering candidates that have to be gone through and the local party as well need to know if they need to select a new candidate.--Lord of the Isles 15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

At the moment all you have is the agent saying "I'm pretty sure he won't be standing". Still just his agent's opinion. When Tony Blair makes a formal announcement he can be added to the list, but not until. Minds can change, you know. Incidentally, UKpollingreport is not a reliable source. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Considering that UKPolling Report is a well respected site for its analysis and content, it is surely more than just a blog? doktorb _words^deeds 15:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The article I had included with the item was from BBC News not UK Polling Report. I quote from what his agent said "Tony's said he is packing in as leader and he's not going to stay on the back benches - so I can't see him standing at the next election.

"He has spoken to me about it, and as far as I know he is not going to stand."

Tony Blair has both said he would be leaving the government and that he would not be on the backbenches - either you are a frontbencher or a backbencher, there is no other role in parliament unless he was actually proposing running for Speaker of the House of Commons and there's no sign of that.--Lord of the Isles 09:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All very speculative and opinions can change. Tony Blair has not made any definite statement to the effect that "I am not going to stand at the next general election" and that's that, until he does make such a statement. We're writing an encyclopaedia here - we report what has happened, not what is thought likely to happen. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the same for anyone standing down, indeed on that basis almost everything in this article would be speculation in that the Boundaries have not yet been finalised, the leaders of any of the parties might change and the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties could cease to exist and be replaced by something else or a one party state, as soon as you start expecting certainty then you have to say that only the divine can be certain of what will happen in the future. If Tony Blair had not talked to his agent about it or his agent had expressed an opinion different to that that Tony Blair intended then Tony Blair would deny the report and maybe even fire his agent because as soon as people are of the opinion that he is leaving as an MP then his local constituency will start looking to other candidates and leave him out of the reckoning.--Lord of the Isles 09:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not the same for anyone standing down. Look at Max Madden in 1995: he announced his retirement, then decided to withdraw it. Unlike sitting MPs he had to go through a contested reselection with no 'trigger ballot' favouring him, and finished bottom of the pile. That's what I've said before: in the Labour Party, an announcement that a sitting MP will not fight the next election is a formal thing with formal significance, not just a vague chat to a reporter by someone else. And what is recorded here is fact: these MPs have announced that they do not intend to contest the next election. We are recording the fact that the announcement has been made; we are not reporting the future. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't a formal thing, candidates are not automatically entered by default, even though Tony Blair is a sitting MP, in order for him to stand at each General Election (and of course during the campaign MP's are not even allowed to say they are MP's because technically until the election when parliament is dissolved they are not MP's) papers for his candidature have to be filed at each election and even if he is de-selected as a Labour candidate he could stand for another party or as an Independent. The Labour Party cannot deselect someone as an MP, they can only deselect them as the Labour candidate, in 1995 Max Madden was still the sitting MP and remained so until 1997.--Lord of the Isles 10:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually what is being reported is that the announcement has been reported, the media after all is not unknown to lie or make mistakes, or indeed to omit things selectively.--Lord of the Isles 10:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hay, welks, Tony Blair has finaly quit acording to Euronews. At last Gordon Brown has got the job and Des Browne is defence secatery!--86.29.247.234 02:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Title (b)

This is an awful and rather ambiguous title, especially since this won't always be the next election. It should go back to United Kingdom general election, 2009/10 or something like that that actually makes sense. Jfingers88 03:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have been thinking about this and there is a very simpy and easy solution.

This title remains until the election is called. Lets say it is for 2009. A new article is created (or detangled from its redirect) for United Kingdom general election 2009. Meanwhile this article (Next UK general election) is kept for the subsequent election, with huge great tags directing people to the 2009 article. When the thing is all over, this article can then grow into the kind of full article we already have prior to 2009.

Whilst we have a next election "covering" page, we may as well keep it for that purpose; creating specific articles as required.

doktorb _words^deeds 07:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the initial title of 54 th United Kingdom gneral election was best because it WILL be the 54th election, whenever it will take place. I think it should be changed back to that title. --89.59.27.248 08:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

People won't necessarily know that the 54th General Election will be the next, whereas if it is called Next United Kingdom General Election then people will be likely to assume that it does refer to the next one, either way the title will change when the election date is confirmed--Lord of the Isles 17:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Boundary changes

Some details on the page, especially the target lists, are taken from the ukpollingreport website which has made estimates of the results in boundary changed constituencies. The "Media Guide to the New Parliamentary Constituencies" has just been published which is a more academic study. I'm going to be bold and change over to the information from the Media Guide, with a note that other estimates are available. Sam Blacketer 15:58, 17 Februaryg 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. I shall shed a private tear as my figures are replaced :), but Rallings & Thrasher are regarded as the official figures so it is appropriate Wikipedia reflects them rather than any of the various rival calculations. I have altered the figures in the table of necessary swings to reflect the figures produced by Rallings and Thrasher (not sure where the previous figures were from, they weren't from my site either) Ajwells 16:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Date by which the next General Election must be held.

The article starts with "the next United Kingdom general election must be held on or before 3 June 2010"

I would be interested to know how that is the case. The 5 years starts from the date of the first meeting of Parliament, 11th May 2005. 5 years after the day would be Tuesday 11th May 2010. That would be the last day that the Prime Minister could ask Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament.

I believe an Election has to follow 17 days after the date of the Proclamation and the issue of the writs, which may not necessarily be the same day as the PM goes to the Queen.

Can someone please enlighten me on this? Biofoundationsoflanguage 12:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The current Parliament will exprire on the 10th May 2010 (if not dissolved before that date). The writs for the election of a new Parliament must be issued before the sitting Parliament expires or is dissolved, so the very last day those writs must legally be issued is the 10th May 2010. The election will be held 17 working days after the Writs are issued, which will be the 3rd June 2010 (that this is a Thursday is pure coincidence). So, that's the last possible date. It won't be that date - at the moment, I suspect it will happen within the next 12 months. But, under current law, that's the last possible date. I think this was all in the article when it was created. -- Gregg 13:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By convention there is at least a 3 week gap between calling a General Election and the actual Election Day, but that is only a convention and if the monarch chose to call a General Election the following day, impractical as this is it would be perfectly legal - it is covered by the Royal Perogative, the monarch can dissolve parliament at any time.

The actual end of the 5 year parliament relates to the dissolution being no more than 5 years after the beginning of the parliament and still allows for a 3 week election campaign to follow that dissolution.--Lord of the Isles 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that intersting information.

So is the date of 3rd of June 2010 correct? 3rd June 2010 assumes that the election takes place exactly 17 working days after the PM goes to see the Queen on the last day of Parliament, and that she immediately called an election, doesn't it? Biofoundationsoflanguage 17:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter whether the PM went to see the Queen or not, under the law unless further legislation is passed to extend the parliament then parliament would be dissolved anyway and could not sit again until a General Election was held, if the PM did not want an election at that point it is almost certain that the monarch would set the date for a General Election anyway and almost certainly that would be what the Privy Council would expect. Of course the Royal Perogative in theory can be used to dismiss a PM or hold an election at any time, once the House of Commons is dissolved there are technically no MPs to dispute anything that the monarch does anyway - 3 June is 5 years and 23 days after 11 May - by convention General Elections (and indeed Local and European Elections) are normally held on a Thursday although there have been some exceptions in the past.--Lord of the Isles 18:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem that 3rd June 2010 isn't a particularly definite date then! As much as I like order and fixed dates, there's not going to be one in this case it would seem. It's not as if it's ever going to be tested anyway! Thank you very much for clearing it up. Biofoundationsoflanguage 20:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It would only become an issue if things continued without a PM calling a General Election to the point where barring use of the Royal Perogative or further legislation, a General Election would automatically be triggered under existing legislation. I don't know of any time in the UK when a parliament has gone full term with the General Election being triggered automatically, generally an election is called after about 4 years if the Prime Minister thinks that there is a good chance of winning an acceptable majority or if they think the political climate is likely to deteriorate over the following year. The day of the European Elections in 2009 is the most likely date with Local Elections probably moved to that day because Labour is a bit short of money for campaigns and has trouble getting it's vote out in elections other than General Elections. Even where a Prime Minister thinks that the government is likely to lose a General Election, the actual election is usually held a couple of months before the last date because both calling snap elections early on and leaving it to the last minute is perceived as being opportunism by the general public.

In the 20th century there were only 2 General Elections which went beyond the normal length of a parliament which were in the First World War and the Second World War, on both occasions legislation was passed to extend the length of the parliament because it was not felt it was an appropriate time in the national interest for there to be a General Election, there were no instances of a parliament going full length with a General Election being on the last day permitted by existing legislation.--Lord of the Isles 12:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4