Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies

Infobox flag straw poll

Hello fellow editors. A straw poll has opened today (27th March 2007) regarding the use of flags on the United Kingdom place infoboxes. There are several potential options to use, and would like as many contrubutors to vote on which we should decide upon. The straw poll is found here. If joining the debate, please keep a cool head and remain civil. We look forward to seeing you there. Jhamez84 11:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another stub split

The "historic" stub type is now oversized: I've proposed we start splitting those by nation and region, starting with the Ireland ones. Alai 15:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sam Blacketer

Kelly Martin is proposing an experimental Requests for Adminship criterion:Endorsement by a wikiproject.

So my very simple question here: Please state on the RFA page whether or not Sam Blaketer is doing a good job on this wikiproject.

--Kim Bruning 20:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you expecting a consensus view from the project? Or the views of individual participants? While I've already supported Sam's RfA, this sounds a rather odd proposal - I certainly wouldn't want to see long arguments on various WikiProjects over whether participants are doing a good job for every RfA. Warofdreams talk 03:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Babes

I was looking for a bit of feedback on the above list with a view to WP:FLC, and this seemed like a more-or-less appropriate place. Comments welcome.

By a side wind, I have also created Barking by-election, 1994 today to complete our by-election coverage back to (but not including) 1991. It is my first attempt at one of these, and is based heavily on Rotherham by-election, 1994, so, again, comments welcome. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barking by-election, 1994 looks good to me. BTW, we are now missing only 4 by-elections from the 1987-1992 parliament: see List of United Kingdom by-elections#50th_Parliament_.281987.E2.80.931992.29. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative Party tag colour

I don't really think the new light blue thats been assigned to the Conservative party is really a good idea or in line with current Conservative practice. Yes I am aware that the darker colour has been assigned to the pre-1840's Tory party. I think rather that the reverse should be the case with the lighter colour for the Tory party and the darker, Royal Blue for the modern Conservative party. Galloglass 18:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above, if it is thought necessary to have different colours for Tory and Conservative. Blue was not a colour particularly associated with Toryism before the 1840s, as uniform national colours only became customary (I presume) in the 20th century. I do not see there is any real need to differentiate the Tory and Conservative parties. The process by which one morphed into the other was gradual and they were essentially the same party. The Whig/Liberal change was also gradual, but at least there was some difference as a number of different groups gradually merged into the Liberal Party. --Gary J 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can safely have the same colour for the Tories and for the Conservative Party, as the two were essentially the same group. Apparently the new blue is now the Conservative's official colour, and we are left with the same problem as when Plaid changed from green to yellow - as having different colours for different eras is not practical (and who wants to check what colours each election candidate adopted in the 19th and early 20th centuries?) - do we use the new colour, which may be unfamiliar, and will not be wholly appropriate for older articles, or do we stick with the old one, which will not be wholly appropriate for the articles on current elections - the articles which are likely to be referred to most? Warofdreams talk 18:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with colours will always come up due to the system Wiki uses. And as it's frankly stupid to consider different templates for different colours, I can only suggest that the colours change as and when needed. Of course the main point is that "official colours" is something only really used by the media in any case; I don't think parties really have a colour of their own outside maybe that used for their emblem or what-have you. Somewhat a superficial issue, I say doktorb _words^deeds 09:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of past colours, I wrote a brief summary at Talk:Unionist Party (Scotland)#Party colours - although blue was formally adopted by the National Union in the 1920s it took several decades to take root across the county. One could make a strong case for red to be the colour of the original Tory Party as it was the colour used in the exclusion crisis.

As for the "Tories and Conservatives are the same parties", this is rather more convoluted - it's highly arguable that the Pittites were in any way a continuation of the parties of, variously, Danby, Harley & Bolingbroke, Bute or North, whilst Peel's Conservatives did start off with both a bold break with the past and recruits from elsewhere - the "Derby Dilly" was quite a mix and one would become the party's longest serving leader. Then later on after the fall of Peel there was talk of the protectionist Conservatives returning to the "Tory" label, although this was declined. Slightly separate colours help to distinguish between the two eras, especially for showing in a table when the changeover occurred and the same MP was returned. Timrollpickering 10:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Party labels before (say) 1859

Following on from the discussion of party colours, there is a broader issue upon which I would like to know the consensus view. The movement from a no organised party system of connections and factions to an organised two party system might be said to have taken place over a very long period (1789 to 1859 might arguably be the 'Age of Realignment'). To adopt an American useage there was a realignment of political forces which gave rise to a new party system. Fred Craig chose to adopt the classifications of Conservative and Liberal from the 1832 election, no doubt to make life simpler for him as they were the terms used during most of the period he covered. I have tended to adopt the convention of using Tory/Whig before the 1832 election and Liberal/Conservative thereafter; but I appreciate this is an oversimplification and other members of the project have taken a different view of the issue.

We perhaps need a series of 'official' project decisions about when the key changes took place. On the right wing of politics (to use a French Revolutionary metaphor) I agree that the Pittites were essentially a new party drawing upon elements of both the Whig and Tory traditions in British politics, which adopted the same name as the 17th and 18th century Tory Party after the period in the second half of the 18th century when the traditional party labels had become almost entirely meaningless. The nineteenth century Whig Party had a somewhat stronger link to the Whig tradition, as a combination of the Foxite and Grenvillite Whig factions but could also be seen as an essentially new party.

John Wilson Croker coined the term conservative in about 1830. It was gradually adopted by Tory politicians, but can we identify a specific date when it became official? Whig/Liberal is a similar but simpler problem. Although the Whig leasder Lord John Russell referred to himself as a Liberal in the 1840s and the newer term was gradually adopted for Whig and Radical politicians; it seems to be generally accepted that Liberal became the official term adopted by Whig, Radical, Peelite and Irish Independent supporters of Palmerston in 1859. If we are going to adopt an official date (other than 1832) for the Tory to Conservative/Whig to Liberal changes then presumably we should say 1859 is the date for non Conservatives to all be called Liberals. --Gary J 14:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule when it comes to the Tory/Conservative tag I have gone with 1841 as the dividing date. With Whig/Liberal tags I have gone with 100% Liberal from 1859 and 100% Whig prior to 1832. For the intervening period I generally tag the Radicals as Liberals and the Aristocratic & Rural element as Whigs. Galloglass 16:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whig/Liberal is the easiest if we take the 1859 meeting as the point of change. For Tory/Conservative I reckon Peel's first ministry is the best changing point so December 1834 is probably the best single date. Everything before that gets messy - a lot of politicians called themselves "Whigs" in much the same way as the right in the French Third Republic used "republican". There is a sense of continuity for the Whigs through Newcastle, Rockingham and Fox but with other Whig groups in circulation and everything else it gets very cloudy. Timrollpickering 17:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming of national subcats of Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament

Done

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16#Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub-sorting MPs

Does anyone have any thoughts on this proposal, which seems to have stalled? Stub sorting/Proposals/2007/June#GB-MP-stub. Your comments would be welcome! --14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Party colours

Please see Wikipedia talk:Index of United Kingdom political parties meta attributes#Similar colours and inconsistencies for suggestions on modifying various party colours. Timrollpickering 13:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Groups of council areas, Fifth Review, Boundary Commission for Scotland - maps wanted

Council areas
grouped by the Fifth Review

Dumfries and Galloway

Scottish Borders

South Lanarkshire

There must be a better way of doing what I have to the left. Is anyone capable of merging the three maps into one?
The group of council areas is covered by six constituencies:
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Dumfries and Galloway
Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale
East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow
Lanark and Hamilton East
Rutherglen and Hamilton West
with Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale covering parts of all three council areas.
Other council areas are grouped as follows:
Aberdeen City and Aberdeenshire
Angus and Dundee City
Clackmannanshire and Perth and Kinross
East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire and South Ayrshire
East Dunbartonshire and North Lanarkshire
Falkirk and West Lothian
Orkney Islands and Shetland Islands
The Orkney and Shetland grouping is ancient, however, dating from 1708.
Laurel Bush 16:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've created Image:ScotlandDumfriesGallowayBordersSLanarks.png. Would you like maps for the other groupings? Warofdreams talk 04:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Maps for the others would be useful. Laurel Bush 09:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The Gordon article now names all five constituencies covering the Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City council areas. Laurel Bush 14:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK, the maps are all now available in commons:Category:Maps of unitary councils of Scotland. Warofdreams talk 02:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Cheers. Laurel Bush 11:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A Bot?

It seems that we have a lovely descriptive, intelligent format for our election boxes, is there any possibility of someone being able to write a bot to do some of the more boring housekeeping tasks... for instance I've just added a lot of election results to the Isle of Wight page, and the changes weren't in my source so those would be a useful task, other things could be adding a turnout in terms of votes (by summing the vote counts) or something. --Neo 18:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple to do this sort of calculation on a spreadsheet (which is what I do), but unfortunately I do not know how to set it up on Wikipedia for the calculation to be done automatically. --Gary J 10:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaqub Masih

Am having a few problems with the info box for this candidate in the Ealing by-election. I've had to enter him as an Independent but the 'Christian Party' appears to be a fully recognised political party as the description has been used on the statement of persons nominated: [[1]] Could someone with the appropriate skills create a box that will work in that format. Thanks. Galloglass 22:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I am busy using expressions like burgh of Aberdeen because I dislike seeing a constituency article which uses eg both Aberdeen and Aberdeen, perhaps in the same sentence, but maybe I am going down a wrong road. I imagine my dislike would be better catered for by moving constituency articles to addresses like Constituency of Aberdeen (UK Parliament).
Laurel Bush 14:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Many constituency names are also the names of towns or cities in the constituency. If there is a risk of confusion as to which is being referred to, then you could clarify by using terms like constituency, burgh, city etc. . The other approach sometimes used is to bold the constituency name, within the constituency article. Thus you could have something like "Aberdeen is composed of the following wards of Aberdeen" or "the Aberdeen constituency is composed of the following wards of the city of Aberdeen". --Gary J 14:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Often, within a section about boundaries, I want to refer to boundaries of neighbouring constituencies. This is were you can get really confusing coincidence of eg Aberdeenshire with Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen with Aberdeen. Laurel Bush 16:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No, be careful about this wasps nest! The article names are fine - seriously, I know of no other UK polling/political web site where such cumbersome alternatives would be saught as preferable to the chosen, legal(?), approved constituency names. I know some times things get wordy - try explaining that the South Ribble administraitve centre Leyland is to be bounded by South Ribble and Ribbe Valley constituencies without tripping up - but the "easier" alternatives could be much worse. doktorb _words^deeds 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the problem which Laurel identifies, but surely it is surmountable by piping the links? e.g.: Aberdeen was a constituency in Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen
This should be rewritten as The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or The Aberdeen constituency was in the city of Aberdeen, where the local football club is Aberdeen F.C.? (Actually, however, the Aberdeen constituency was divided to create Aberdeen North and Aberdeen South before the city was created.) Laurel Bush 11:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hope you don't mind me pitching in again, but since we started (grin!), I think it would be a bad idea to include a separate link to the city status in that sentence: it's not really relevant information in discussing the constituency, and would likly distract the reader. I suggest that it would be better left as a link within the article on the city of Aberdeen (or town of Aberdeen if that's more accurate). If city status was relevant to the discussion of the constituencies, then it would be clearer to write the town of Aberdeen (which was granted city status in [year]). HTH!--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency boundaries are often defined in reference to borough (or burgh) and city booundaries, and, in an article about constituencies, these terms seem more appropriate than town. Anyway, my main point is that my own syntax might be a lot might be less contorted if constituency articles opened with "The constituency of ...". Laurel Bush 09:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for suggestions re Kincardine and Western Aberdeenshire and West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. See Talk:West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (UK Parliament constituency). Laurel Bush 09:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I think the two articles should certainly be merged - it creates a quite unnecessary tangle to get hung up on variations or permutations in the "official" names or order of names which are likely to be only confusing to the general reader. Especially since the Press Association version of the 1997 name was different again (Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine), which since it is almost invariably used by the media is probably what most people will search under. "West" and "Western" (and the corresponding terms in other directions) are being regarded as interchangeable in other constituency articles, and it is quite likely that on occasion the old Kincardine and West(ern) Aberdeenshire seat was referred to as West(ern) Aberdeenshire and Kincardine. There are other constituencies where even the official order of names within a single period is frequently ignored - the PA name for Torridge and West Devon, for example, is Devon West and Torridge. If we were to follow a strict rule of separate articles for a change in the order of the names there would need to be separate pages for North Luton (1983-97, county constituency) and Luton North (1997-date, borough constituency), which would be ludicrous. Rgmmortimore 11:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monmouth mess

We seem to be in a bit of a mess in Monmouth. I think I can see what has happened but before making any changes, can anyone check this and see if I am on the right track?

pre–1832

Monmouth parliamentary borough (1 seat)
Monmouthshire county constituency (2 seats)

1832–1885

Monmouth boroughs constituency (1 seat) - Newport, Monmouth + Usk
Monmouthshire county constituency (2 seats)

1885–1918

Monmouth boroughs constituency (1 seat) - Newport, Monmouth + Usk
North Monmouthshire county division (1 seat)
South Monmouthshire county division (1 seat)
West Monmouthshire county divsion (1 seat)

1918

Five single-member county divisions: Abertillery, Bedwellty, Ebbw Vale, Monmouth and Pontypool
Newport borough constituency

1885-1918 county divisons are fairly straightforward: we have a single article on each the (Northern, Southern and Western

However, we currently have two other articles: Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency) .. and they list the same MPs for the 1832-1918 period.

(Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) is currently a redirect to Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency), which I created, and that appears to be a mistake).

The source of the confusion seems to arise from Rayment's use of "Monmouth" for the "Monmouth Boroughs" constituency, which leads to one long list of MPs since 1660 under a "Monmouth" label (see the list of MPs)

What I propose is that apart from the three fairly straightforward 1885-1918 county divisions (Northern, Southern and Western), there should be three articles, as follows:

Period	Monmouthshire	Monmouth	Monmouth Boroughs
to 1832	Rayment's list of MPs headed "Monmouthshire", to 1832	Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", up to 1832	(empty)
1832–1885	Rayment's list of MPs headed "Monmouthshire", 1832-1885	(empty)	Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1832–1885
1885–1918	see Northern, Southern and Western divisions	(empty)	Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1885–1918
1918-present	(empty)	Rayment's list headed "Monmouth", from 1918	(empty)

Does this seem right? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would comment, but you accidentally have submitted a table that is not completely comprehensive of all the years we need to consider. --New Progressive 15:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I made a mess of that, and have now corrected it. Sorry! Hope the revised table makes more sense.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your trichotomy of these constituencies makes sense, and fully endorse its implementation. I initially wondered whether Monmouth Boroughs should have been included in Monmouth, however, after reading the history of the Monmouth Boroughs constituency (it included the town of Newport, which Monmouth never did), then I must conclude that splitting the two is appropriate. --New Progressive 11:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the above table is pretty good, but I am not certain that the borough constituency pre-1832 was limited to the town of Monmouth. I do not have access to any of the reference material from where I am typing this, but I will see what I can come up with over the next few days. --Gary J 14:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The plan laid out in the table looks good to me, provided Gary J's concerns either prove unfounded or are addressed. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what Boundaries of Parliamentary Constituencies 1885-1972 (ISBN 0-900178-09-4), F. W. S. Craig 1972 has to say. Laurel Bush 10:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From Craig:
1885
County constituencies: NORTHERN, SOUTHERN, WESTERN
Borough constituency: MONMOUTH DISTRICT
1918
County constituencies: ABERTILLERY (urban districts Abercan, Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina), BEDWELLTY (unrban districts Bedwas and Machen, Bedwellty, Mynyddislwyn, Risca, rural district part St Mellons), EBBW VALE (urban districts Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Tredgar), MONMOUTH (municipal boroughs Abergavenny, Monmouth, urban districts Caeleon, Chepstow, Usk, rural districts Abergavenny, Chepstow, Magor, Monmouth, Pontypool, part St Mellons), PONTYPOOL (urban districts Abersychan, Blaenavon, Llanfrechfa Upper, Llantarnan, Panteg, Pontypool)
Borough constituency: NEWPORT (county borough Newport)
1950 County constituencies: ABERTILLERY (urban districts Abercan, Abertillery, Nantyglo and Blaina), BEDWELLTY (unrban districts Bedwas and Machen, Bedwellty, Mynyddislwyn, Risca), EBBW VALE unaltered (urban districts Ebbw Vale, Rhymney, Tredgar), MONMOUTH (municipal boroughs Abergavenny, Monmouth, urban districts Caeleon, Chepstow, Usk, rural districts Abergavenny, Chepstow, Magor and St Mellons, Monmouth, Pontypool), PONTYPOOL (urban districts Blaenavon, Cumbran, Pontypool
Borough constituency: NEWPORT (county borough Newport)
1951
As 1950 but alteration to rural district Magor and St Mellons, MONMOUTH (SI 1851/1390 under section 2(3) of House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949
1955
As 1951 but MONMOUTH altered (alteration to rural district Magor and St Mellons), NEWPORT altered (alteration to county borough Newport)
1971(/74?)
As 1955 (same lists of districts etc) but minor alterations to MONMOUTHm, NEWPORT
Laurel Bush 09:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now looked at several volumes from the History of Parliament: The House of Commons 1509-1558 by S.T. Bindoff (Secker & Warburg 1982); The House of Commons 1558-1603 by P.W. Hasler (HMSO 1981); The House of Commons 1715-1754 by Romney Sedgwick (HMSO 1970) and The House of Commons 1754-1790 by Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke (HMSO 1964). The history of the borough representation from Wales and Monmouthshire is more complicated than that of the English boroughs.

The Act of Union 1536 (26 Hen. VIII, c. 26) provided for a single borough seat for each of 11 of the 12 Welsh counties and Monmouthshire. The legislation was ambiguous as to which communities were enfranchised. The county towns were awarded a seat, but this in some fashion represented all the ancient boroughs of the county as the others were required to contribute to the members wages. It was not clear if the burgesses of the contributing boroughs could take part in the election. The only election under the original scheme was for the 1542 Parliament. It seems that only burgesses from the county towns actually took part. An Act of 1544 (35 Hen. VIII, c. 11) confirmed that the contributing boroughs could send representatives to take part in the election at the county town. As far as can be told from surviving indentures of returns, the degree to which the out boroughs participated varied, but by the end of the sixteenth century all the seats had some participation from them at some elections at least.

The original scheme was modified by local legislation and decisions of the House of Commons (which were sometimes made with no regard to precedent or evidence: for example in 1728 it was decided that only the freemen of the borough of Montgomery could participate in the election for that seat, thus disenfranchising the freemen of Llanidloes, Welshpool and Llanfyllin).

Turning to the Monmouth seat, there were six (possibly seven) ancient boroughs which were contibutory boroughs for the members wages. In the sixteenth century these were Caerleon, Newport, Trellech*, Usk, Chepstow, Abergavenny and possibly Grosmont*. (* Almost certainly after 1558, according to Bindoff.) From 1544 the 'one burgess for the borough of Monmouth' (provided for in the 1536 Act) was to be elected by the burgesses of Monmouth and of any other boroughs in the shire.

By the eighteenth century the right of election was in the resident freemen of Monmouth, Newport and Usk. They numbered about 2,000 voters in 1715. The constituency was by then a pocket borough of the Dukes of Beaufort. After the Morgans of Tredegar (who had influence in Newport) challenged the Duke's candidate in 1715, there was no further contest until 1820.

After all that history, I conclude that the Monmouth seat was a district of boroughs both before and after 1832. --Gary J 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)--Gary J 14:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A borough seat, but not the county seat created in 1918. Laurel Bush 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the Monmouth division of Monmouthshire from 1918, is a different seat from the Monmouth district of Boroughs pre-1918. I would suggest they be respectively Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency). --Gary J 15:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A conclusion?

Many thanks to everyone for all that v thorough research. How does the revised table below look as a summary?

Period	Monmouthshire	Monmouth	Monmouth Boroughs
to 1885	Rayment's "Monmouthshire" list, to 1885	(empty)	Rayment's "Monmouth" list, to 1885
1885–1918	see Northern, Southern and Western divisions	(empty)	Rayment's "Monmouth" list, from 1885–1918
1918-present	(empty)	Rayment's "Monmouth" list, from 1918	(empty)

If this is OK, I will split the articles as appropriate, but I'll leave the wording of the history of the Booroughs seat to those with access to the sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What should be done with Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency)? At present the article represents the constituency as if having continuous existence since the 16th century, but as one of two constituencies (the other a borough constituency) covering a county it was abolished in 1885, and the current constituency was created, 1918, as one of seven (one a borough constituency). Trying to cover the period to 1885 and the period from 1918 in one article is bound to make for a very contorted reading. I am tending to the view that both Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) and Monmouthshire (UK Parliament constituency) should be disambig pages leading to articles disambiguated by use of to 1885 and from 1918. Laurel Bush 11:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Laurel, my proposal as above is for Monmouth (UK Parliament constituency) to cover the 1918-onwards constituency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above table seems right to me, in the specific case of Monmouthshire, although there are English constituencies (such as Windsor which I am working on at the moment) where a single parliamentary borough constituency was abolished and replaced with an expanded county division of the same name. In those cases a single article seems appropriate despite the considerable boundary change. --Gary J 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For preference I'd have liked to have seen the post 1918 Monmouth County seat as a continuation of Monmouth Boroughs as has been done with most of the English seats where the same transition has occurred. That said, if everyone else is happy with the three separate listings then I have no real objection. Galloglass 13:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galloglass, I think that has been done for borough seats which became county seats, but not (AFAIK) for district of boroughs seats. Grantham and Windsor were both borough seats. (Were there any district of boroughs constituencies in England? I thought they were only in Scotland and Wales). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have started drafting Monmouth constituency as a disambig page so that it can be referenced at the top of any constituency article with Monmouth as name term in the article title, along the lines of "For other constituencies which may be confused with .... see Monmouth constituency". Laurel Bush 15:57, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Might that be better called Monmouth constituencies? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It opens with "Monmouth constituency may refer to: ...."
Monmouth constituencies, I am thinking, should be a redirect to the Monmouth constituency page.
Laurel Bush 16:50, 31 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

According to Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency) the constituency was created in 1832. If so, then I guess there was an earlier Monmouth borough constituency which was merged into the district of boroughs constituency. Rayment's list treats two borough constituencies and one county constituency as a single constituency. Laurel Bush 12:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Looks to me like there should be an article called Monmouth (constituency 1536 to 1832), about a borough constituency whose origins predate creation of the Parliament of Great Britain, let alone that of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Laurel Bush 15:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Umm, I don't like that. First, we don't split articles on constituencies of the same name, even where one was a borough constit and the other a county constituency. (see, for example, Grantham (UK Parliament constituency)).

Secondly, I'd prefer to rely on the external sources researched by other editors than on the wikipedia article at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency), which is demonstrably inaccurate: contrary to what is stated at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency)#Boundaries, I can find no trace of a Monmouthshire Newport constituency before 1918 or any Usk constituency (or parliamentray borough). --08:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am unable to see anything obviously wrong at Monmouth Boroughs (UK Parliament constituency)#Boundaries. It does date the Monmouth county constituency from 1918, claiming that the borough of Monmouth was previously a parliamentary borough component of the Monmouth Bouroughs constituency. (Compare with the parliamentary burgh of Inverness as a component of Inverness Burghs.) It does not claim that there was ever an Usk constituency. Laurel Bush 09:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Laurel, you seem to be arguing different things. It says that they had been "had previously been separate parliamentary boroughs", and on that basis you suggested on the 2nd that there should be a separate "Monmouth (constituency 1536 to 1832)" article ... but it only make sense to separate out Monmouth pre-1832 if it was not a district of boroughs constituency, and if Usk and Newport were separate. The point surely is that before 1918 the three towns were a district of boroughs constituency, rather than separate boroughs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Yes. I can find nothing so suggest that Usk might have been, in itself, a borough constituency, or even a borough (except perhaps for parliamentary representation purposes, within a district of boroughs). I do not rule out the possibility, however, that there was at some earlier stage a Newport borough constituency. Also, I gather from Craig that there was an alteration to boundaries of the district of boroughs in 1885. This is not mentioned in the article (which implies that given boundaries date from 1832). 1885 legislation, however, details only alterations, without giving a full definition of constituency boundaries. For the latter it is necessary to refer back to 1868 legislation. Craig offers neither boundary definition for either date nor indication of whether there was any change to boundaries in 1868. Laurel Bush 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Having consulted Philbin's Parliamentary Representation 1832 - England and Wales, which gives details of the arrangements before and after the Reform Act, it is very clear that the constituency before and after 1832 was essentially the same. Although it was generally referred to before 1832 as Monmouth borough, presumably because it was regarded as legally being English rather than Welsh, it was in fact a district of boroughs as in most of the rest of Wales and consisted of Monmouth, Newport and Usk. The Boundary Act that accompanied the Reform Act merely widened the boundaries of each of the three boroughs, and the Reform Act altered the franchise but not the nature of the constituency. Therefore it would seem most sensible if the Monmouth Boroughs article included the history of Monmouth borough from 1545 (which according to Philbin is the correct starting date) to 1832 as well as post 1832. If other people are happy with this I can revise the article to include these details, and the disambiguation page. Rgmmortimore 10:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that, and would be delighted if you did the work! Thanks for all the research. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

I wonder whether Philbin details 1832 boundary changes (listing areas included within new boundaries). And did borough boundaries change also for purposes other than parliamentary represenation? (I believe the latter did not happen for burghs under the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1832).) Laurel Bush 10:10, 17 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Philbin summarises the changes to each constituency that were included in the Boundaries Act, but I'm not sure whether it is always an entirely comprehensive specification of the new constituency. There is also Youngs (Royal Historical Society publication), who attempts to give a complete specification in terms of administrative areas which by cross-referencing different parts of the book you can get down to a full listing of parishes - unfortunately there seem to be a fair number of errors. (Neither of them give details where only part of a parish was included, which was often the case pre-1832, so all you can tell sometimes is that there was a boundary change without being able to plot it on a map.) But Youngs only covers England and Philbin England and Wales; I don't have a source that covers in Scotland in the same detail, though one may well exist, and I'm not sure what the position was there. I think the municipal boundaries were separate, but I seem to remember that they were reformed not soon afterwards; 1835 rings a bell but may be totally wrong, not really my subject. Rgmmortimore 17:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historic constituencies and counties

Discussion moved from my talk page, because it's likely to be of wider interest. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the regional historic constituency categories into counties creates an awkward anomaly in the case of Peterborough, to which I don't see an immediate solution. Where an ancient constituency still exists under the same name, it can be reached by following the link to the category of current constituencies - so, for example, from the "historic constituencies in Cornwall" page, you are one click from an abolished constituency and only two clicks from a former constituency that still exists. But if you want to check all the constituencies that once existed in Northamptonshire, you can't find them from the "historic constituencies in Northamptonshire" pages because Peterborough, which used to be a constituency in Northamptonshire, is now a (still existing) constituency in Cambridgeshire. (In a sense it was just as bad with regional pages, since the other Northants seats came under East Midlands while Peterborough was East of England, but at least it was pedantically correct since Peterborough was never an East Midlands constituency as the current regions date only from the 1990s.) Any ideas of a neat solution? Can we add explanatory notes/links on the category pages? There may be some other equally awkward cases, e.g. Abingdon and the other bits of Berks transferred to Oxon. Rgmmortimore 20:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good point.

I started this exercise because it had already been done for some counties in the South-West, and it seemed like a good idea in those cases where county boundaries had been reasonably stable. So, for example, I'd think it's be a nightmare in Yorkshire: would Halifax go in both a West Yorkshire categ and a "West Riding of Yorkshire" category? I have also shied away from Cambridgeshire, because I hadn't the energy to research the boundary changes

I thought that I had come up a reasonable solution with Abingdon, which I have categorised under both Berkshire (historic) and Oxfordshire (historic). I have just done something similar for Christchurch, which is now in Hampshire constituencies and Dorset (historic). I wonder whether that logicis applicable to Peterborough?

I'm quite open to the notion that categorisation by county may not be viable at all, because so many county boundaries have been unstable, but it seems to me to be an idea worth pursuing because the current regions of England are unfamiliar to the lay reader and relatively new, whereas the counties are much better understood. (The regions have a further problem, in that they cross county boundaries). I think that explanatory notes in the categories would probably help a lot if we don't upmerge.

What do you think? Dual classification or revert to the regions? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing articles summarising constituencies in the historic counties, which involved making a judgment on which historic county constituencies were predominantly in when they crossed the historic county boundary. A similar approach could be used for any set of boundaries. For example I did an article on Middlesex representation, almost all of which could form part of a Greater London article.

So far as categories are concerned the approach suggested for Abingdon seems right. The categories are presumably intended to help those unfamiliar with a subject, so if a constituency has been associated with more than one county then it should be put in more than one category. The county categories could then be sub-categories of the region (although some territory, particularly in the Greater London area have changed regions as well as county or equivalent). --Gary J 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One or two pages

Should there be separate pages for Medway (UK Parliament constituency) and Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency)? (The latter is basically a micro adjustment to fit ward boundaries with the name changed because "Medway" is now identified with the larger unitary authority). Timrollpickering 20:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it really has to be two separate pages even though they are almost identical. Combining them onto the one page would cause confusion to the casual user and we have been using a name basis to sort them so combining two different named seats onto one page would make for complications. Galloglass 20:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The more I look at this stuff, we need one constituency name per article, and one article per constituency name. The exceptions we have agreed relate to treating involve treating the 19th century county divisions as the being the same name as the differently-structured 20th-century names (e.g. "Southern Division of Borsetshire"/"Borsetshire Southern" is included in the same article as the current "South Borsetshire); but I'm not sure whether we have fully resolved what to do with constituencies which gained or lost a borough prefix (e.g. is Camberwell Dulwich the same as Dulwich).
However, where a constituency's name clearly changes, as with Medway/Rochester and Strood, I think that there should be separate articles even if the boundaries are identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Liberal Democrats Metacolour

The colour of the Scottish Liberal Democrats has recently been changed to give two differing shades for the National Party and the Scottish one. I would appreciate it if people would give their thoughts on this in the discussion I have started on the above talk page. Thanks. Galloglass 15:11, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections then I will revert to the original colour that is used nationally for the Liberal Democrats. - Galloglass 08:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see absolutely no reason for the Scottish state party of the Liberal Democrats to be given a different colour to the Welsh state party and the Party in England. The Liberal Democrats have a federal party structure, but there is no need to distinguish between candidates in the different parts of the UK. Accordingly I agree with the proposal to revert to the same colour throughout the UK. --Gary J (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming and abolition of Dunfermline Burghs

Does anyone else have any references that might help at Talk:Dunfermline Burghs (UK Parliament constituency)#Name_confusion.2C_and_date_of_abolition?

Laurel Bush has a god ref, but it feels wrong. Maybe I am wrong, but I'd be welcome other assessments.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Sands

Sands was a 19th century visitor to several of the more remote Scottish islands including St Kilda and Papa Stour. He is variously described as a journalist who worked for Punch magazine, a poet and an MP. He may have come from and/or been MP for Ormiston.

I have drafted a short biography article about him (here) and have gleaned some basic info, but I can't find any definitive corroborating evidence he was ever an MP. He was possibly one in 1875 and assuming Ormiston refers to the village in East Lothian, it was part of Berwickshire (UK Parliament constituency). It has a list of the MPs that held the seat - John Sands isn't included.

The sources I have which mention him being an MP are:

Maclean, Charles (1977) Island on the Edge of the World: the Story of St. Kilda. Edinburgh. Canongate. Page 117.
"Perthshire - L Archives 2003-2" Rootsweb.com

Details of his political career are scant and some sources that refer to his St Kilda visit at length do not mention it all. It is possible there was another Johns Sands with whom Maclean confused the writer who visited St Kilda.

If anyone has/can find any other details please let me know. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the Rayment listings of MPs for all constituencies since 1660, and it turns up no MPs by the name of John Sands. --New Progressive 12:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It's most odd - Maclean could simply have made a mistake in thinking he was an MP, and Ancestry.com is not exactly a reliable source, but it is an odd co-incidence that someone writing 26 years later provides significant information that Maclean does not about the same fellow, whilst making the same mistake. I'll create the article without a reference to him being an MP save as a cautionary footnote. If anything else turns up I'd appreciate hearing about it. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its possible he was a member of one of the colonial legislatures some of which were styled as 'parliaments’'. Lists of provincial legislators such as those in Canada and Australia are on the internet. Many of those for the Caribbean and elsewhere are not though. I hope this helps. Galloglass 15:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, although there is nothing I have seen anywhere in the literature that suggests he was ever resident anywhere except the UK and the Faroe Islands. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One possible explanation is that he may have been a parliamentary candidate. Sometimes that gets written up wrongly as actually winning he seat and being an MP. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checking through Craig 1832-1885 there is no listing of any Parliamentary candidate for Berwickshire by that name either. Galloglass 16:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggesting and checking on this. Ben MacDui (Talk) 16:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Seton mockingly described him as the "M.P. for St Kilda". I wonder if that might be the source of the claims? Warofdreams talk 23:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is valuable information sir! I infer it may be from St Kilda published in 1878, which my library lacks a copy thereof? Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it. I found the relevant snippet on Google Books: [2]. Warofdreams talk 10:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this charming booklet, filled so am I am told with "traditional right-wing rhetoric and sarcasm" is for sale on the open market at £125. I shall not be investing, but I shall certainly add this idea to the text at John Sands. Many thanks. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Scottish constituencies

Hi folks

I just thought that I would draw y'all's attention to a wonderful series of articles created by User:Laurel Bush on Scottish constituencies. What he has been doing is trawling diligently through the piles of sources, and for each period between boundary changes he has constructed an article which firstly lists all the burgh constituencies (describing in outline their boundaries), and then lists all the counties, describing in each case the county constituencies therein.

The series is not complete yet, but so far 7 of the 11 periods are covered:

Scottish Westminster constituencies 1708 to 1832
Scottish Westminster constituencies 1885 to 1918
Scottish Westminster constituencies 1918 to 1950
Scottish Westminster constituencies 1950 to 1955
Scottish Westminster constituencies 1955 to 1974
Scottish Westminster constituencies 1974 to 1983
Scottish Westminster constituencies from 2005, which existed already as list+map, but to which LB has added a description of the boundaries

The result is a remarkable overview of Scotland's constituencies since the Act of Union. These articles strike as being very close to good article status; looking at the good article criteria, the only missing elements I can see are possibly a tweaking of references, and the addition of maps to those articles lacking them. The latter job is something I don't know how to do, but I believe that somewhere on wikipedia there are folks who do this sort of thing: Morwen did a lot of this, but now claims to have largely retired from the task; It seems that many of the existing constituency maps were created by Wereon. (The only slight difficulty I see in creating the historical maps is that the map in Counties of Scotland shows a number of enclaves and exclaves).

So far as I am aware, we don't have anything similar for any part of the UK, and these articles strike me as being a model for how the job should be done for other areas … if anyone can summon up enough energy! Meanwhile, congrats to Laurel Bush :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. At present I am struggling to find a library willing to lend a copy of the 4th Periodical Review, and I imagine there may have been, between the 3rd Review and the 4th Review, interim reviews which I have failed to take account of re 1883 to 1997. If there were such interim reviews, then results should be referenced in the 4th Review. Also, I am now doubtful as regards a reference I have used for the period 1974 to 1983 re an interim review between between the 2nd Review and 3rd Review. I got details of the results of the interim review in the form of photcopies from the National Library of Scotland, of selected pages of some publication or other, but that library seems strangely incapable of providing a valid ISBN for the source of the photocopies. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

sources for elections results

A newcomer to the Constituencies area, I've tried to upgrade Leeds North West (UK Parliament constituency) by adding past election results, 1992 and 1997 so far. A question: Is there a consensus as to the "best" online source for these? And is there any convention about how to attribute the source? (I've used references in the table headings, but this seems not to be commonly done). PamD 13:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pam. The online source most of us use is Keele University site at; Election results, 1950 - 2005 Its by far the most accurate for numbers and the party descriptions can usually be relied upon too. For the period prior to this I'm afraid there are no real reliable online sources and most of us use reference books; F. W. S. Craig's, British Parliamentary Election Results for the period 1832 - 1949, being the main ones. As to referencing, I simply list the sources used at the bottom of the article. Hope this helps. Galloglass 17:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tended to use multiple sources in an attempt to weed out errors - I tend to find that Keele and Election Demon are both very reliable, with the Grauniad being unsurprisingly the least reliable. An example of my method of attributation can be found on Woking (UK Parliament constituency), though your method is absolutely fine. --New Progressive 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edinburghshire and Midlothian

The following is copied from Talk:Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918), where there is discussion as to whether Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) (1708-1918) should be moved to Edinburghshire (UK Parliament constituency):

This is a very difficult one to get the naming right on. It was almost certainly called Edinburghshire when it was created in 1708 but by the time of Gladstone's Midlothian campaign in 1880 it had been known by that name for most of the 19C. To add to the problem we have an extant seat called Midlothian (UK Parliament constituency) which by our normal convention we normally include into one article seats with the same and related details.

The key thing about this seat is the 1880 campaign whose information and details I think can only be included into a seat called Midlothian, otherwise we're bending a major piece of political history which is not ours to change. I am aware that Craig lists all the 1832-1885 details as Edinburghshire which suggests that it was called so in 1832, that said Craig is not infallible on these things as we well know from problems elsewhere.

So before we make any changes we really need to know for certain when this seat became known as Midlothian in place of Edinburghshire. If we can tie this date down specifically then I would support the creation of two articles; Edinburghshire from 1708 - 18?? and Midlothian 18?? to present. - Galloglass 17:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect strongly that the administrative county did not become officially Midlothian until after 1885 (date of the Redistribution of Seats Act 1885), and I am pretty certain there was no change to constituency names and boundaries between 1885 and 1918, the latter being the date of the Representation of the People Act 1918. And I note that Linlithgow (rather than West Lothian) and Haddington (rather than East Lothian) seem to have been official constituency name terms as late as 1950. Re the admin county there is unlikely to have been any official name change prior to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889. As a postal address, however, Midlothian may have earlier usage which was transferred, unofficially, in reference to admin county and constituency. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I am wondering whether there are others with views, information. Laurel Bush (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I gave my views on this vexed issue in another section further up the page. Briefly I have little doubt that Edinburghshire was the more official name (as the official county name does not appear to have changed until 1921), but that Midlothian was the one more used at the time. As we are talking about a constituency initially created in the days before a definitive official name was given, either alternative is open to doubt. Perhaps we should, in this particular special case, compromise on something like Midlothian (Edinburghshire) or Edinburghshire (Midlothian) for the 1885-1918 seat. --Gary J (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball

Does anyone have any thoughts on creating election results boxes for the next general election, such as was done in these edits to Boston and Skegness?

Personally, I think that while it is appropriate to list candidates selected by the major parties, it's not very productive to clutter an article an election results box which will remain blank until the next general election, which is up to two years away. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no.....You see, all you have to do is check something like UKPollingReport to see how many constituencies have selected candidates, so to be honest the Wiki principle of not being the first source of information is ticked; the web/public domain is full of information which these boxes are reflecting>

However...I can see that the "Crystal Ball" issues will cause some editors to think it's all a bit "jumping the gun"; indeed I suspect some would demand citations for all those candidates named.

I would be happy to see the boxes filled with candidates who have been definately chosen, but not sure if I could tolerate 640 boxes with thousands of "To Be Decided" where the candidates names should be. Caution, I guess, is the watchword here? doktorb _words^deeds 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Doktorbuk. It's useful, and not original research, to list candidates who have been selected, if we can provide a citation (and generally, UKPollingReport should be ideal for this). However, it is crystal balling to list parties who are probably very likely to stand, but haven't yet declared that they will do so. So how about just listing the confirmed candidates? I've created an example at Sheffield Central (UK Parliament constituency)#Elections in the 2000s. Warofdreams talk 18:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that listing parties that might stand is highly inappropriate. That said I would much prefer to see the announced candidates either noted in a text paragraph or a simple list form rather than all up election info boxes. - Galloglass 18:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The list at Sheffield Central looks neat, but there are a couple of problems: How do you neatly indicate the source for each distinct nomination, and what order are they in (not A-Z by party or candidate here, so perhaps something like "national size of party"?). How about a simple list or table, in chronological order of selection, showing: party name, candidate name, date selected, source? PamD (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think any list or table, if we choose to go down that route has to be in normal ballot paper order (alphabetic by surname). - Galloglass 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear above: what I meant to say was that the Sheffield example seemed to be neither A-Z candidate nor A-Z party. I think chronological probably makes most sense until the election is called, then slot into the Election Results box. But if the main source is UKPollingReport, I suppose we don't have dates. Stick with A-Z surname, then, as you say. PamD (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely, A-Z surname is the way to go. The Sheffield example was in the entirely unscientific "order they appear in on the UKPollingReport website in order to give a quick example". I've now fixed it! Warofdreams talk 00:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I too didn't make myself very clear. My objection is not to noting that candidates have been selected (subject to WP:RS, which can easily be met in most cases), but with using an election box format to display them. Per Galloglass, a text paragraph or a simple list seems much more appropriate when we are so far from an election. Election boxes should be used for results, but there are no results yet, no even a date when we will get results. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that articles on Canadian Parliamentary ridings do normally include tables about party candidate selection contests as candidates in each recent election (see Ottawa Centre for an example). I am not sure that level of information is readily available to the general public, in the UK system. However we could include a section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections. I see this as something different from a partially completed election result box. --Gary J (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A section on publicly announced prospective candidate selections would be good. However, I'm not sure where it should fit in our standard article structure; the section I added to Easington is a sub-section of the MPs section, which seems wrong, and I'd welcome any better ides. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need an additional section for events leading up to the next election. Perhaps in an ideal world we should have an individual article for each election in the history of a constituency, as we do for by-elections (there may be more useful information available about a recent general election in a constituency, than about an unopposed by-election return a hundred years ago). However to try to keep things manageable recent political developments (including lists of prospective candidates) could be put in the history section. Alternatively if all we are concerned about is the list this could be put in the election results section, as they do in Canada. We would need a template for a smaller box than those used for election results, to specify the party, the candidate and when they were announced as a candidate. Data sources could be indicated by footnotes. We could then reset the prospective candidate boxes after each general election, so we would not add much bulk to the standard article. --Gary J (talk) 23:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advance planning - "Post-Election Edit War Syndrome"

As some of you will be aware, elections leading to a change in power in other countries have had a tendency to spawn edit wars on Wikipedia concerning:

The actual results - sometimes users haven't even been waiting for the official declaration or media call and have just personally declared the incoming figures (or a prominent politician's comments) to be the result;
The point when power changes - a lot, including some of the relevant domestic media, seem to think that the election looking like it's going one way somehow magically changes all the office holders there and then;

...and the consequence of this is edit wars on the election pages themselves, on the biographies of the individuals involved, on all the pages about the position, on the articles about the place, even on transnational lists. And it often gets messy, with page protection often locking what is constitutionally the wrong version, and personal, with some users accusing others of being partisans "trying to cling on".

A discussion was started at User:Bearcat/Post-Election Edit War Syndrome in the aftermath of the Australian election in the hope of getting some covering solution in place.

Since the UK hasn't yet had a change of party government since Wikipedia started this problem hasn't yet hit us much yet, whilst our relatively fast declaration process (and the lack of "official provisional partial" figures) means that it's rare to have results disputes (although there are some potential issues here) but a new government taking office doesn't happen in an instant (and, as Gordon Brown's arrival at Number 10 showed, it's not always clear just who officially holds what job in the interim). As the next election isn't likely to be for a while I'd like to initiate a discussion now, before election fever sets in, in the hope of getting an advance consensus in place to handle any problem matters.

As I can see it the main potential problems are:

Seats getting called before the official declaration, usually by the media making projections from opinion polls and/or very early results but also sometimes by politicians themselves. Two notable moments in recent years were in 1997 when Jonathan Dimbleby told Simon Hughes on air that he had lost North Southwark and Bermondsey, only for Hughes to be returned with a good majority; and 2005 when Bob Marshall-Andrews predicted his own defeat on air to the cheers of both Conservatives and Tony Blair, only for BMA to retain Medway with a narrow majority. There's also the problem when some seats take for ever to declare and have several recounts - Winchester in 1997 took some twenty hours, one seat in 2005 (Crawley I think) had the count suspended for a while and went int two days, Northern Irish seats don't count until the next day and take an eternity and so forth. Whilst counting is going on it's not unusual for unofficial provisional figures to leak out and when a seat is a razor edge marginal reports about who has won can vary quite a bit.
It's not 100% clear if sitting MPs "stop" being the MP for the constituency between the dissolution of Parliament and the declaration of the individual result, or even not until they formally take the oath in the House of Commons. The rules of salaries, pensions and the Father of the House suggest they do (as does a scene in Alan Clark's diaries where immediately after the 1992 dissolution is proclaimed in the Commons Clark tries to go into the Members' Bar but is blocked as he is "not a member anymore" wilst other MPs enter), but other rules suggest otherwise.
A government doesn't magically change just because the polls have closed, the media have called the result or even because the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition have claimed victory or defeat. It doesn't happen until the outgoing PM tenders his resignation to the Queen and she formally commissions a new one. It's also not really clear who runs the country in the middle of all of this - if there's a terrorist attack, who has the power to order a response?
If the Parliament is hung, as in February 1974, it's quite possible that what happens in actuality will not always reflect what the media and public believe has happened. At that time a lot of people assumed Harold Wilson had "won" the election and saw Edward Heath as trying to cling to office; others argued that Heath was within his rights to seek a coalition and remain in Downing Street while he tried. And visits to the Palace to keep the Queen updated confused the media further as they thought Heath was resigning.
The devolved Parliaments work slightly differently in that the voting systems used have nearly always delivered a hung outcome (and in Northern Ireland even when it's clear who the First Minister would be, there have still been lengthy negotiations to see if devolution will be restarted), but even without that the First Minister is formally nominated by a vote in the chamber. So it's more likely there will be someone who is clearly going to be First Minister but hasn't yet taken office for a bit.
Although party leaderships don't necessarily come within this ambit, though very often a general election defeat does lead to a leadership election in the main parties, it's worth noting that when in recent years the Conservative leader has stood down, the outgoing leader has remained in charged and carried out all the functions (e.g. Prime Minister's Questions) until a new leader has formally been declared. However in the both the last Liberal Democrat leadership elections the outgoing leader's resignation was with immediate effect and the Deputy Leader of the Parliamentary Party (a crucial distinction) acted as leader for the interim.

All of these could prove problematic but I hope that we can come up with some agreed positions for the main possibilities in advance that can serve as a consensus against post election edit warring. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting points... I'll organise my responses below numerically in the hope that we can keep things organised. --Neo (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Calling Seats

My belief is that as British Election results are typically reported very fast (within 24h for most seats) no speculation on results or preliminary results should be reported on individual constituency pages. However, if a respected media commentator speculates upon a result (for instance the Dimbleby example above) then it may be appropriate to record this (as a newsworthy item in itself) but it should be clear this is speculative. --Neo (talk)

Those of us who are Wikipedians and members of political parties likely to be at a counting of the votes will happily take a laptop to the Town Hall to provide live, as it happens results =). I really don't think there is any need at all for "provisional" results to be reported on constituency pages because, as you say, the results are often known within 24 hours - they are available as supplements in broadsheet 'papers on the next Saturday, if all else fails.

There should be a good enough network of people - including, alas, less Wiki-inclined party members I suppose - out there during the counting of the votes to get Wiki articles updated fairly quickly and accurately without the need to continously edit "it has been reported this seat is a Labour hold/Tory Gain blah blah". As ever, sense and reason should do us well. doktorb _words^deeds 10:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no real need for us to attempt to duplicate the systems the broadcast media use to report results. Blogging at some count may scoop the on screen and teletext sources by a few seconds or minutes, but does that really make any difference? --Gary J (talk) 13:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. The Status of MPs

I think just for convenience and to accord with people's perceptions we should continue to refer to MPs until they resign or a new member is elected. I.e. in a general election Mr. X is member for constituency Y up until the result for constituency Y is reported, whereupon the newly elected person will be the member for Y. --Neo (talk)

I would say that no one is an MP after a dissolution and before a general election, although there is (or was at one time - I am not sure of the current law) a possibility of a dissolved Parliament being revived on a demise of the Crown during a general election campaign. My view is that if someone who was an MP until the dissolution is re-elected in the general election (including a delayed poll because of the death of a nominated candidate in a constituency) then his or her service should be regarded as unbroken. However if the former MP was not re-nominated or was defeated, then his or her service should be treated as ending at the dissolution. --Gary J (talk) 19:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure sounds good. In terms of any forthcoming election I think we can agree that it is an unnecessary extravagance (and probably confusing to most users) to edit the page of every MP and constituency to reflect the fact that *technically* the office holder isn't an MP between dissolution and re-election, and it should be acceptable to refer to a new incumbent as such once the official count has been released even prior to them swearing allegiance to the Queen (if that is indeed the moment they formally become an MP). --Neo (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC) [My apologies that this was unclear as to meaning earlier - I really should proof read more].[reply]

I agree with the practical point that we do not need to mention the technical status as a non-MP of the incumbent MP after a dissolution. I think it is right that an MPs term strictly begins when he swears or affirms allegiance, as an MP who votes in Parliament before doing so vacates their seat. --Gary J (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't tally with the status of Sinn Féin members as MPs. Presumably it's a grey area, but the term must strictly begin with the Opening of Parliament? Warofdreams talk 00:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of different points when it might be said a person becomes an MP. (1) A person is elected to be an MP on the day of the election. Normally the votes are not fully counted and the result declared on the day of election itself, but it is sensible to regard that date as when someone is elected. (2) Thinking further about this the declaration of the result does use a phrase like "Y is duly elected to serve as the Member of Parliament for the X constituency". The question then is when does the service strictly begin. (3) I think it is arguable that it starts from the day of the new Parliament first assembling. The five year term of a Parliament starts with the first meeting, not the date of election. (4) Then we have the point that for MPs to have the full powers of the office they have to swear/affirm allegiance. For the purposes of our articles I think the date of election can be used as the date when someone becomes an MP in a particular Parliament. For someone who serves without a break in successive Parliaments I would date this between the dates of first election and the dissolution of the last of the Parliaments. --Gary J (talk) 16:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the idea that between the dissolution and, at least, the election there are no MPs is possibly not 100% legally accurate. The position of Father of the House would clearly fall to pieces if all the continuous services were "reset" every general election, whilst MPs who unsuccessfully contest the election are, I believe, still paid and get a slightly bigger pension entitlement than one of identical service who stands down that time. I vaguely recall reading of one outgoing MP in about 1992 who got the nomination in an absolutely hopeless constituency in order to highlight this. (There's also the scene in the Diaries of Alan Clark where immediately after the dissolution is proclaimed he finds he is no longer an MP but others are allowed into the Member's Bar.) When Patrick Cormack had a postponed poll in his seat at the last election there was some investigation as to what the interim situation was (and whether or not he's lost his place near the front of the queue to be Father of the House) but I think the situation was that he remained the sort-of-MP for South Staffordshire until the delayed poll was held.

With regards the Sinn Féin situation this is more confused because of some recent changes designed to reflect the fact they were elected but don't take the oath. As I understand it they're not eligible for the salary until they take the oath, but were they to do it then I think their pay would be backdated to at least the start of the Parliament. As they're very unlikely to actually do this it's hard to say for sure. They do now (controversially) get an office allowance for constituency work. Whether or not they should strictly be putting "MP" after their name is unclear.

In terms of practicalities, I think it would be excessively anal (and potentially not on the most solid of grounds) to edit 650 odd biographies and constituency articles to declare that somone is now the "former" MP for that constituency, only to reverse most of these afterwards (and where they're unsuccessful we'd have to edit the articles anyway to link to their successors). How about:

Where a sitting MP stands down we can say they're no longer the MP from the point of dissolution and edit accordingly.

When they are contesting the same seat again we consider them to still be the current MP and only edit this if & when they lose their seats.

If they contest a different constituency, either because boundary changes have done a renaming or because they're transferring to a different area (e.g. George Galloway is moving from Bethnal Green & Bow to have a try at Poplar & Limehouse) then I guess the easiest thing is to consider them the MP for the old named seat until the election results.

...and if an edit war breaks out on particular pages then this should be the agreed position, with people encouraged to discuss the matter centrally rather than spray inconsistency. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One further point of note is that there is no requirement for any minister to be a member of either House of Parliament and sometimes a sitting Cabinet minister will retire from the Commons at the election - Patrick Mayhew, Mo Mowlam and Paul Boateng are, I believe, the most recent examples. All remained in the Cabinet until the post election reshuffle, despite clearly no being MPs by any understanding at the end of it. Remember also that a minister losing their seat does not automatically mean they vacate office (they could be transferred to the Lords as did at least one of the 1992 defeats, come back in a Commons by-election or even serve as a minister outside Parliament as some past law officers have) and it certainly isn't a "magic wand" vacation of ministerial the second the Returning Officer declares their seat. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - in the modern era gaps between Parliaments are only for a few weeks. In earlier times long delays in calling a new Parliament were common. I suppose the most famous example was the eleven years gap in the Parliaments of King Charles I. It would surely be very strange to regard someone, who was an MP in both successive Parliaments, as having been an MP in the intervening eleven years; or arguing that a member from the first Parliament only ceased to be an MP when the next Parliament was elected. The principle remains the same, despite modern perks like continuing the salary for a time after the dissolution. --Gary J (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that this status is uneffected by legislation which has been passed in the intervening three hundred and seventy years or so, such as those requiring regular meetings of Parliament, those placing a cap on the length of parliaments, etc.?

On ministers being members of either House of Parliament, this is only a convention not a law. In any event the convention is not that the minister must be in Parliament when appointed, but that if not the minister must acquire membership within a few months. As is pointed out above law officers were not always in Parliament. There were also some examples, during the First World War, of members of the government who were not in the UK Parliament. A noteable example was Jan Smuts, who was a member of the War Cabinet (1917-19) when serving as a member of the South African Parliament, not the UK one. --Gary J (talk) 22:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Governments and PMs

Again its not too important as this will probably happen within 24h, however I'd say that Gordon Brown remains PM until he resigns (as the PM doesn't have to be head of the largest party, or even a member of the house of commons IIRC). --Neo (talk)

Yes this is less of a problem for PMs, although one side effect for other ministers is that an incoming PM doesn't always appoint everyone to the exact portfolio they shadowed and sometimes the government can take a few days to be fully announced (and the media keep calling the posts wrong). Some clarity as to exactly what does and doesn't count as definite sourcing of an appointment (I'm not sure individual ministers even bother trooping to the palace to "kiss hands" and collect seals anymore) will be useful, though endless rounds of edit wars on exactly who's been given Culture, Media & Sport and whether or not the post is being retitled is not the most serious of problems. There was a bit of debate as to whether or not Gordon Brown was both PM and Chancellor for a bit and even as to what was on his page between TB leaving the palace and GB going there! Timrollpickering (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that when a PMs resignation takes effect, this is treated as being the resignation of all the members of the government. Until that point the PM and Ministers retain the full legal powers of their offices, although by convention they act as caretakers if not re-elected. If, say, an immediate devaluation was required then I imagine the outgoing ministers would act as agents for the the about to be appointed government. It is perfectly normal for a new Prime Minister to be appointed, but for other ministerial posts to be left vacant for a day or two. The policy of Twentieth-Century British Political Facts 1900-2000 about dates of ministerial appointments is to cite the date when it was announced in The Times, unless the news received wide publicity the previous day. I presume the second option is more relevant in the modern era, so the basic authority for the date of appointment is presumably the announcement on the 10 Downing Street web site (unless Mr Smug has just walked out of 10 Downing Street and announced to the assembled media that he has been appointed Secretary of State for Paperclips, before the website has caught up with this breaking news). --Gary J (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Hung Parliaments

As above I'd guess that the former PM remains PM until he tenders a resignation, and the Queen invites the head of the largest party to attempt to form a government (or whatever the formal procedure is). --Neo (talk)

There are no formal procedures, just conventions that may or may not be followed. The strict law is that the Prime Minister remains PM until he resigns or is dismissed (see my comment in the previous section). The outcome of an election makes no legal difference to the PMs position. Even the concept that a PM who loses the confidence of the House of Commons (or never has it in a new Parliament) should resign is only a convention, not a strict legal requirement. I have explored the history of hung Parliaments in the UK in Balance of power (parliament). To summarise; the older conventions suggest that if there is no clear majority then the incumbent PM can, if he wishes, meet Parliament and see if there is a majority against him on the government's Queen's speech. Sometimes the PM decides to resign immediately. If the incumbent loses in Parliament or resigns there is then a convention that the largest opposition party should be given the first chance to form a government. If the leaders of the two largest parties both fail to get the confidence of Parliament, then we would be in uncharted territory. In principle the Queen's duty is to secure a Prime Minister who can obtain supply (taxes and appropriations) to keep the government running. A subsidiary duty is to avoid too frequent elections. I therefore presume that some attempt would be made to find some government which could keep things going for a few months at least. Whilst that attempt was made the PM in possession of office would presumably continue on a caretaker basis. You can see how this works by looking at what has happened in Belgium since the last election there. Basically if a Parliament was so fragmented that even a viable minority government could not be formed there would have to be a new general election. The real problem arises if the second general election has the same inconclusive result. The politicians might have to consider a coalition then. --Gary J (talk) 18:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the most recent example of this is Heath, who hung on for several days after the February 1974 election, seeing if he could talk the Liberals into coalition, before giving up, and per convention, the Queen called upon Wilson to form a government, which he did.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Devolved Assemblies

As I said above, there's a formal vote in all three to nominate the First Minister. I'm less sure if the FM takes office the moment the result is declared or if they officially take office (and the legal right to exercise their powers) at some other point. The main problem I can see here is that the Parliaments are more likely to be "hung" and this creates a clash of expectations between "the party with the most seats is the winner" belief with "the executive will be chosen by negotiation between parties" approach - for instance after the last Welsh Assembly election there was serious talk of a three-party coalition of Plaid, Conservatives & Lib Dems whilst Labour got the most seats. Luckily in those circumstances Labour were the incumbents, but this kind of expectations (and media declarations) can encourage the false belief that someone else has got power. I'm not sure the British media and political junkies have yet made up their mind as to what defines "winning" an election which doesn't give a single party majority, so it's even harder to talk about "First Minister-elects" than it is with, say, Australia between November 25th and December 2nd where Kevin Rudd was the winner of the latest election but had not yet taken office and listing him as such was the solution to the revert wars. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it the Queen has to appoint the First Minister nominated by the Scottish Parliament. It is probably the same in Wales. Northern Ireland may be different. I do not imagine the republicans would want the Queen to be involved as little as possible in the devolved arrangements.

I see the First Minister of Scotland article confirms my understanding. Alex Salmond was nominated as First Minister by the Scottish Parliament on one day, subsequently had his appointment formally approved by the Queen and then was sworn in as First Minister (before the Court of Session) on the day after the nomination. Salmond was therefore the First Minister elect, when selected as the Parliament's nominee for formal approval by the Queen and actually became First Minister when he was sworn in.

As to the inability of the British (or perhaps only English) media and public to comprehend a non-majoritarian political system, that is largely a matter of habit and inexperience. When all elections in the UK and particularly England use fair votes, then it will be understood that the rules of the political game have changed. In a legislature elected by a proportional representation system, in which no party has or is likely to have a majority, everyone will just have to wait and see who "wins" government. It will not just be a matter of saying that the X Party has the most seats, so they must form a minority government or be the leading element in a coalition. --Gary J (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Party Leadership

We should definitely follow party practice here, whatever that may be. If someone doesn't have a formal title during the time between resignation and the appointment of a new leader, then I think 'outgoing leader' sounds like a fine term to use. --Neo (talk)

It's stepping into pedantry but as I understand it in the Conservatives normally the formal resignation is timed to take effect only when the successor has actually been elected and the situation is the same even if the sitting leader is no confidenced (as happened to Iain Duncan Smith in 2003). The outgoing leader retains all powers, such as the leader's seat on internal party committees and various hiring & firing powers as appropriate that may need to be exercised in the interim. I believe the normal situation for the Lib Dems is the same - certainly Paddy Ashdown remained leader until Charles Kennedy was declared elected rather than Alan Beith standing in - and I'd guess the reason for Kennedy and Campbell going "with immediate effect" & the deputy leaders acting as leader has much more to with the circumstances of their downfall than the formal practice. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

7. Directly elected Mayors

I'm not entirely sure when a newly elected Mayor actually takes office - in the event of Ken Livingston losing the London election this May exactly when will he be replaced by his successor? Timrollpickering (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the UK situation, obviously, but in Canada there's still a transition period of about two to three weeks before a new mayor is sworn in. Inevitably, however, the relevant articles are afflicted with the same gun-jumping problem as provincial or federal elections. Bearcat (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Greater London Authority Act 1999 specifies the following:-

28 Declaration of acceptance of office (1) A person elected to the office of Mayor or of an Assembly member shall not act in that office unless— (a) he has made a declaration of acceptance of the office in a form prescribed in an order made by the Secretary of State; and (b) within two months from the day of the election, the declaration has been delivered to the proper officer of the Authority. (2) If such a declaration is not made and delivered to that officer within that time, the office of the person elected shall become vacant at the expiration of that time. --Gary J (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging articles

Done The {{UK Parliamentary Constituencies}} exists for application to the talk pages of articles within this project's scope, but so far it is attached to only about 600 of the 2000+ UK constituency articles. It seems to me to be a good idea to tag to the remaining articles and categories so that people know we are here; this will probably be particularly relevant as we approach the next election.

I now have a bot (BHGbot (talk · contribs)) which is authorised for this sort of job, and I think that this would be an appropriate use of it. I have defined the job at User:BHGbot/Job0004, complete with a list of the articles to be tagged at User:BHGbot/Job0004/List.

Any objections to my going ahead and having the bot do this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of using a bot for this is very sensible. If we have this tag for some constituency articles it ought to be on all of them. --Gary J (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent. Related to it, I've created Category:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies and Category:WikiProject UK Parliamentary Constituencies articles (to be used on namespace pages and article talk pages) to keep track of pages related to this project. Warofdreams talk 18:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sitting Prime Minister category

I have just discovered Category:United Kingdom Parliamentary constituencies represented by a sitting Prime Minister, which has been created and populated by Wehwalt (talk · contribs), who has also been adding succession boxes on that subject to each constituency article.

It seems to me that the succession boxes are an informative, if slightly trivial idea, and should probably stay, but my initial inclination is that the category is probably a case of over-categorisation where a list would be better. I will ask Wehwalt to join a discussion here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm indifferent. Since I did the succession boxes first, a category seemed a quick and easy way of collecting the 39 qualifying constituencies. But a list would also give the opportunity to explain the times when there was no "incumbent", i.e. a P.M. from the Lords, or when Douglas-Home renounced his peerage and had to run for a seat in a by-election. I'll leave it to the wisdom of editors. Naturally, I agree the succession boxes should stay.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think a list would be better too, in part because it could list the PMs as well as constituencies. I see Bath is in the cat, but I can't work out for which MP/PM - so a list would be less puzzling! Rwendland (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If editors think it's a good idea, I'll work on the list. I've at least gone over the material recently. And Bath was William Pitt the Elder (Earl of Chatham), who kissed hands on 30 July 1766 and stayed an MP for two weeks before he was given a peerage so he could be Lord Privy Seal as well as PM (conventions in those days were different).--Wehwalt (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great work. Your info about Bath & William Pitt is so deliciously interesting, I've taken the liberty of adding it to Bath (UK Parliament constituency). Rwendland (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've created the article for the list, it is List of UK Parliament constituencies represented by sitting Prime Ministers. I've only put the 18th Century material in so far and will await comment. It is basically a crib of the UK Prime Minister list. To make it more focused on the constituency, we could certainly put in the county or other info regarding the constituency. Play around with it, I'm not good at wikiformatting. Once the dust has settled, I'll put in the last 206 years or so of material. It is tedious but not difficult.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am basically happy with what you are doing, but there are a few points of detail which may need to be considered.

1. I query if it can be said that an MP, particularly a person who changes seat like Pitt the Younger, was contiuously an MP. We are having a discussion above on this page, about when an MPs term ends. I am of the view that an MP ceases to have that status immediately a dissolution takes place. I note that the Canadian Parliament web-site, includes pages of MPs details. Those pages list service in each Parliament, from election to dissolution (or whatever if the MP left the House before a dissolution), separately. I think that is the correct approach, if you are identifying exact days when a Prime Minister was MP for a constituency, as your article seems to aim to do. It may be difficult, before just about all contests in a general election were on the same day starting in 1918, to confirm the exact day of election in any particular constituency. However I know the day when each relevant general election ended and when the Parliaments first assembled, so those dates could be used if you want to simplify the research.

2. Another point is that prior to (as I recall) 1926, when an MP accepted an office of profit under the crown (such as First Lord of the Treasury for almost all Prime Ministers), they automatically vacated their parliamentary seat and had to be re-elected at a by-election.

--Gary J (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I understand what you are saying on all points. I agree that, technically, all MPs lose their seats on dissolution, that "Election Day" was neither a single day nor a specific day until recent times, and that you do have the ministerial problem. There are other questions, such as when an MP takes up his seat (Did Heath really represent Sidcup in those four days between the election and his resignation? Parliament didn't meet, after all). That is going to be the problem in putting the list together. It may be well to list continuous service, but list the dissolutions in the "notes" section. As, say, for Finchley, you'd list Thatcher's service, but have the dissolution to election dates in 1983 and 1987 in the notes section. I think the only other seat switcher while remaining PM other than Pitt and possibly Heath, was Attlee. All this isn't as easy as it looks!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point there's also Woodford in 1945 - I think Churchill's own declaration (in the now divided seat) preceded him formally tendering his resignation, plus with the three week delay for counting it makes the whole question of when someone starts being the MP more than a matter of semantics in a week. (I'm also not 100% convinced that sitting MPs standing again stop being MPs at the moment of dissolution - see my comments above - which makes trying to turn this into a hard and fast rule potentially bordering on OR.) Also on the new minister's by-election thing, IIRC the law was modified in 1919 to give nine months grace after a general election, before being wound up in 1926. No sitting PM ever lost their seat under this law (although some did at earlier points in their career) and I don't think any served as PM for such a brief period that they were never actually an MP for the duration (unlike the Canadian PM Arthur Meighen during his brief second term when defeats in the Commons, the general election and his own seat all occurred rapidly) and possible other examples internationally). Timrollpickering (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little too picky. They counted on the 26th, Churchill resigned on the 27th. I guess he represented Woodford as PM in '45 long enough for a couple of stiff drinks and the drive to the Palace. A little too de minimus for me. Heath at least continued to exercise the office and tried to form a coalition.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with Cleveland Constituencies

The info boxes for constituencies in Cleveland redirect to Cleveland Ohio when clicking on the Cleveland link. They should redirect to Cleveland%2C_England 82.13.188.198 (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) - it's inelegant but does point to the right page. Problem is that the place where "Cleveland" appears is the "entity" field, which doesn't seem to allow for a piped link of [[Cleveland, England|Clevland]]. Does anyone know how to fix it better? I won't change the other 5 for now in case there's a better way to do it! PamD (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS There seems no point in going again round the much-trodden debate of whether Cleveland should redirect to Cleveland (disambiguation) (often argued) or to Cleveland, England (no chance) instead of to Cleveland, Ohio. Even if it led to the dab page it wouldn't be good in these infoboxes. We need some way to pipe the link, or will just have to put up with "Cleveland, England" appearing. PamD (talk) 12:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about County of Cleveland? I have tried it in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (UK Parliament constituency) and there was already a re-direct from County of Cleveland to the Cleveland, England article. --Gary J (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forty shilling freeholders in Parliamentary Boroughs

There appears to be a difference of opinion about whether such freeholds conferred a county vote before 1832. I had understood that the Reform Act 1832 conferred a county vote on non-resident Forty Shilling Freeholders in Parliamentary Boroughs (which were not counties of themselves, where the freeholders voted in the borough). I had not understood that forty shilling freeholds in parliamentary boroughs had conferred a county vote before the Reform Act. My source was Electoral Reform in England and Wales, by Charles Seymour (David & Charles Reprints 1970.

I may have misunderstood the pre-1832 law. If so could someone please provide a source to confirm the position. There is however a footnote on page 13 of Seymour that "According to the early system, the same persons seem to have participated in the election of knights and burgesses ...", which seems to suggest that did not happen at the time of the Reform Act. --Gary J (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, freeholders in the boroughs could vote in the counties except in most (but not all) of the towns and cities that were counties of themselves. The clearest source I know is John Cannon, Parliamentary Reform 1640-1832 (Cambridge University Press, 1973), who not only explains the law but cites figures for the votes from each town in each county, taken from the pollbooks at pre-Reform elections. I think the confusion arises from the fact that abolishing these votes was widely discussed at the time of the Reform Act, and I have seen several discussions of this which make it appear to be the status quo when it was not. I will try to get further references to verify this in detail. Rgmmortimore (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. None of the books I have looked at gives a clear explanation of the issue. If you can produce a list of the boroughs, whose freeholders voted in the borough instead of the county, then I can amend some of the county constituency articles I have done. --Gary J (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were 19 counties corporate at the time of the Reform Act. According to Cannon, the position was this: Three of these - Canterbury, Poole and Southampton - had the right to vote in their counties like other boroughs. In five, the borough freeholders could not vote in the county but the franchise gave the freeholders the vote in the borough - Bristol, Haverfordwest, Lichfield, Norwich and Nottingham. The remaining 11 were the only places in England and Wales where 40 shilling freeholders were excluded from voting completely (unless, of course, they qualified for some other franchise): Carmarthen, Chester, Coventry, Exeter, Gloucester, Hull, Lincoln, London, Newcastle upon Tyne, Worcester and York. Porritt agrees with most of this, but states that in Carmarthen also the freeholders voted under the borough franchise, and that some of the freeholders in York did. At least they agree on the 16 that could not vote in the county.

But I think the county of the town/city did not necessarily coincide exactly with the borough boundaries - Cannon certainly seems to imply that this was the case in York, though I have not yet found a solid statement of it; and it looks from Youngs' listing of local admin boundaries as if Sculcoates parish was in Hull county but not Hull borough, which would have meant that it was not within any parliamentary constituency at all. But that may be an error, unless I can find it verified somewhere else. Rgmmortimore (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for summarising the position. --Gary J (talk) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data Integration with Public Whip

Let me say I had no idea that this scheme of constituency pages existed to this level of completion and sophistication; I obviously wasn't paying enough attention. I am in awe. It puts my meagre efforts to shame.

To get straight to the point, I am trying to develop an election calculator widget system on my website. The current version looks like this: http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/election2008.php I was hunting for a list of candidates per constituency, and seem to have found it.

In case anyone is unaware, the full set of data files behind TheyWorkForYou and Public Whip is described in http://ukparse.kforge.net/parlparse/ These contain XML files of MPs and constituencies (including common misspellings) that are used to process the Parliamentary Hansard text. There is a special case for the ministerial offices which are recorded by time lapse downloads of the official webpage of the government.

To me, this appears as a huge duplication -- there is absolutely no reason these data sets should not use the same basic ids, or even for our set to be derived by downloading and processing the wikipedia data. This would be what I need to save wasting my time gathering candidate data that is already being done by a team of wikipedians. Please leave a note if you want to discuss this, or are able to answer questions about what types of tweaks would be acceptable to the templates, or have already written some scripts to process these wikipedia pages. I wouldn't be surprised if anyone is ahead of me.

The main idea is to create an automated webpage that (in true mySociety fashion (I am not a member, but I know them)) takes your postcode (to find the constituency), adds a few of your choices and Parliamentary voting information, and prints out one sheet of paper of your own that you can carry around for yourself during the election campaign. Usually you have to rely only on some ugly party-generated election literature to know about the choices. But here anyone could make their own personalized campaign sheet in a matter of minutes, and maybe distribute it among their closest friends independently of any party organization. It's also meant to include one or two thoroughly reprehensible votes that the MP did during the previous term which have all but been forgotten that, maybe, someone might ask them about during the hustings.

Obviously the wikipedia page would work as a very good baseline with its beautiful maps, summarized electoral information, and with the historical data stripped out. Is this an attractive idea to anyone? Goatchurch (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to this project. I have no objection to your plan so long as it complies with the licence provisions about copying (a note about which is I think accessible from every article), although someone more familiar with the technical arrangements would have to tell you if it is feasible.

You join us at a major milestone in this project. As far as I can see we now have some sort of article for every UK Parliament constituency which has ever existed. I have just finished a list of MPs for Northamptonshire from 1640-1832. This appears to be the last constituency article to be started. There is still much to do to bring all articles up to the standard of the best, but we can perhaps congratulate ourselves with having reached the end of the beginning of the project. --Gary J (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnsley East and Mexborough (UK Parliament constituency)

I have noticed - how late! - that the now perfectly fine and created Barnsley East constituency still does not (technically) have an article here; the redirect from BEaM still exists. As I have no idea how to "untangle" a redirect, can someone sort it out?

Cheers

doktorb _words^deeds 19:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As requested I have eliminated the re-directs from Barnsley East and Barnsley East (UK Parliament constituency) to Barnsley East and Mexborough (UK Parliament constituency). I have also adapted the intro para from the BE & M article, so there is some content to start off the BE constituency article, which I presume you intend to work on.

The way to amend an existing re-direct is to click on the link to the re-direct article which appears under the title of the article you have been re-directed to. That takes you to the re-direct article itself. The re-direct article can then be amended after clicking edit this page in the usual way.

I hope this helps. --Gary J (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course now someone has reverted the re-direct links, so again everything leads to the BE & M article. Presumably the idea is that at the time of the next election the main article will be Barnsley East and BE & M will then be converted to a redirect. --Gary J (talk) 12:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no sense! Why is this being done when every other constituency is fine to have its article? I have added candidates for the new Barnsley East, is that not notable enough? doktorb _words^deeds 11:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have long tried to apply a one-name-one-article rule to all the constituency articles. Barnsley East should be a separate article to Barnsley East and Mexborough, and the 83-87 period should be covered in BE rather than in BE+M. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well both Barnsley East, and Sheffield South East, seem to suffer from this problem. Given that this is a) inaccurate, and b) incredibly frustrating, I have now come up against a brick wall. I have tried to re-edit/re-create Barnsley East but with no success. Candidates have been declared for both, leaving me with information I know to be valid but with nowhere to put it! Can /someone/ please look into a) re-creating the articles, and b) finding out who is creating the re-directs, to advise them to stop? doktorb _words^deeds 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have recreated Barnsley East as a stub, replacing the redirect - needs more content, some of which presumably needs to be removed from BE&M and a bit of tidying up to be done. Over to you. PamD (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and have added more content and tweaked the BE&M article to match. PamD (talk) 19:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archives