Talk:2024 Rochdale by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect[edit]

The poor sod's body is barely cold, let's not rush to create an article. A general election might be called in which case we've wasted effort in creating a page. Less haste, more decorum. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, there is not one single source mentioning a by-election so this is just WP:CRYSTAL at this point. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 19:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The precedent set with 2017 Manchester Gorton by-election is to have a by-election article even if a general election supersedes it. —LukeSurl t c 05:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labour candidate designation[edit]

Despite Labour disowning the candidate, the candidate will still appear on the ballot paper as a Labour Party candidate. I therefore think it is more appropriate the candidate list includes a Labour designation, especially as the same is true of the Green Party candidate. Georgeday868 (talk) 20:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. OGBC1992 (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree also. LukeSurl t c 22:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. We reflect the ballot paper. Anything else can be put in the text with citations doktorb wordsdeeds 22:21, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Keep reverting. Moscow Mule (talk) 00:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate information[edit]

Hi all. Been fleshing out the candidate information and I hope that I am not adding too much. If so, no hard feelings if anyone wishes to remove anything. I inserted this line:

"Despite the economic liberalism of Reform, Danczuk is styling himself as an "old Labour" candidate with a focus on local issues rather than the "woke" politics of modern Labour or the Israel-Palestine conflict."

...at the end of the paragraph on Danczuk (Reform candidate) but I am unsure whether it is worded well. I put the term "woke" in quotation marks to try and show that that is his perception of Labour's politics rather than an objective fact, but I am unsure whether this looks like it is endorsing his claims, which is not my intention. I included it because I believe styling himself as an "old Labour" candidate who is critical of "woke" politics is central to his (and Reform's) populist message aimed at white working class voters. Horarum (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think to be on the safe side I would cut it back to finish the sentence at “local issues”. OGBC1992 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I reworded the sentence before I saw this discussion, hopefully to be more NPOV. I would also not object to ending the sentence at "local issues". Jdcooper (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
alternatively, we could finish the sentence at "...local issues." with a further sentence about what the sources say he criticised, to make it less ambiguous that it is him saying that, rather than it being a fact. Jdcooper (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your wording is much better! Thanks. Horarum (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the ballot result, might it not be said that: "Instead of countering the narrow, racist and reactionary nature of Reform, the Labour Party - while refusing to hold Israel to account - attempted to attract the votes of working class Tories." 91.110.75.3 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using CSS text for candidate pictures?[edit]

The infobox looks awful with so many candidates missing photos. Could we use CSS text (such as in the 2024 Kyoto mayoral election) to indicate party colors and names through text where portraits would usually be? River10000 (talk) 03:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bar chart incorrect[edit]

Has the Greens on the incorrect % Guyb123321 (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, @沁水湾 could you update your lovely graph? Furbybrain (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo. Done. 沁水湾 (talk) 13:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great to get this fixed. I've also noticed that it says +/- in percentages rather than % points, which would maybe also be worth fixing Quinby (talk) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly were you referring to? 沁水湾 (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@沁水湾 The differences between the 2019 election and this by-election are displayed as "-43.9%" or "+21.3%". This should be percentage points, as that is the correct way to display differences between two percentage values. For example, if a party who got 50% in 2019 got 25% in this by-election, then it would be a reduction of 50% (half of their 2019 total), but only 25 percentage points if that is clear. Quinby (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the figures for spoilt ballots?[edit]

Why hasn't the number of spoilt ballots been released? Is it because more people voted "None of the above" than voted for the candidates? 86.183.35.46 (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Acting Returning Officer did not announce how many rejected ballots there were, and the council also haven't posted the figure online alongside the results. I've e-mailed them to ask if they can update that page, but I'd lean more towards cock-up than conspiracy to be honest. Running that election can't have been easy.  M2Ys4U (talk) 18:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still no figures? 86.183.35.46 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's the weekend, the relevant council officers probably aren't at work. If and when the figures are published we can add them to the article. Until then we just have wait.  M2Ys4U (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that every ballot paper had to be accounted for for the result to be declared legal? As Labour and the Conservatives were calling for voters to spoil their ballot papers, and Starmer declaring that Labour would have won if they had stood, Im wondering if he's seen some info that is being kept from us? If there was significant numbers, it might provoke similar protests in other elections, or even a demand for a "None of the above" option? 86.183.35.46 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the total number hasn't been announced (yet) doesn't mean that the ballots weren't accounted for. For one there are a lot of people at an election count, including counting agents for each candidate and sometimes impartial observers. They observe as ballot papers are removed from the (sealed) ballot boxes and verified by the people counting the votes - this is how news of who's likely to have won is reported early in the night before the proper count has finished (the Lib Dems are usually very good at this part!). Once this first step is done, the turnout figure is announced. Then they sort the ballot papers by vote and perform the actual counting of votes (again, observed by candidates and agents). Lastly, the returning officer shows each rejected ballot paper to the candidates (or their primary agent) and tells them why they are being rejected. Suffice to say, it would be hard to meaningfully tamper with the results or keep something like a massive number of spoilt ballots a secret.  M2Ys4U (talk) 00:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure every ballot paper has been counted, I also believe that the number of rejected ballots is being kept from us for reasons I suspect are due to the debate they'll cause. Both main parties called for their supporters to spoil their ballots.. Maybe people should spoil their vote in every election to reinforce the message the 2 main parties are advocating? Maybe "None of the above" is the people's preference and should be a legitimate option that can be counted rather than the rejected stats that currently get announced? 86.183.35.46 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if voting changed anything, someone will (attempt to) ban it. For why would anyone want to get involved, when they can sit at home watching Pointless TV? Clearly, for certain people, this result is a real Shock to The System. 95.147.153.62 (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock to The System[edit]

What is alarming is the way that this article is allowing the half-truths within the Prime minister's statement to remain unchallenged. For is there not a real difference someone that defends the right the people of Gaza to defend themselves, and someone that "glorifies Hezbollah"?

That said, is there not a difference between putting out information in the public interest, and helping to push self-serving (dis)information? 95.147.153.62 (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Postal votes[edit]

Should there be a bit on this? I have read that Rochdale Borough Council have confirmed that 13,460 postal votes were cast in the Rochdale by-election, 43.2 percent of the votes cast....Halbared (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout?[edit]

Turnout is listed here as 39.7%, rather a coincidence as Galloway got 39.7% of the vote. I know the Guardian has this but is it possible that the turnout number has been wrongly copied over? The FT following AP has turnout as 37.6%. Erithrocyte (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The turnout figure was released prior to the results, around 00:30am, so it would be impossible for them to have copied the Galloway figure Quinby (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Rochdale_by-election&oldid=1211593600"