Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election

UKIP Target Seats

Recently, after the European elections and local elections, UKIP leader, Nigel Farage has repeatedly emphasised that he want to follow the "Paddy Ashdown" strategy and "ruthlessly" target "10-20 seats" at this election. If there is an announcement of a target seat list from UKIP, could it be included on this page, considering that the main media narrative is how many seats will UKIP win it seems odd to keep them off the target seats section Guyb123321 (talk) 17:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC) The article is here - http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/24/ukip-hitlist-20-seats-commons Guyb123321 (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. Bondegezou (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

... but any list of target seats needs to come from reliable sources. I don't think we can come up with that list ourselves. Bondegezou (talk) 20:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be some time before reliable sources emerge with a formal list of target seats but really we do need a reliable source for this. I shouldn't expect one will emerge until after the summer. That said there is nothing to stop us putting a note in the article that UKIP are preparing a list of target seats, or whatever, if of course we can find a reliable source that says that they are. To me this seems a sensible interim solution until any such list is produced/can be reliably sourced. Owl In The House (talk) 13:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that. Note can say that Farage has said the party will select some seats and target efforts, referencing Paddy Ashdown's approach with the Liberal Democrats. Bondegezou (talk) 15:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that UKIP may come out with a target seat list in September, at the same time as they unveil their parties policy manifesto, until then a note sounds good Guyb123321 (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I was right, a tiny bit earlier than September - Here's the list of twelve seats http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-reveals-list-of-12-seats-it-plans-to-target-in-general-election--and-nine-of-them-are-tory-9691712.html

Can it be added? Guyb123321 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Heywood and Middleton is a ukip target seat, 2,2 difference.81.58.144.30 (talk) 14:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove UKIP from polling

If they're not relevant enough for the infobox, there's no need to factor them in to the polling section of this election. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They have been polling higher than the LibDems for over a year now, to not include them would be odd.--Britannicus (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Then why aren't they in the infobox? It's weird to exclude them from one part and include them in another. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me that the real question is "should we include UKIP in the info box?". Removing them from the polling would be a misrepresentation of our reliable sources, so that is not an option. A similar conversation about who is included in polling has just been concluded on the polling talk page, reconfirming the current polling layout. By the way 83.109.2.4, can you confirm whether or not you are the same person as the IP who was involved in that discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have not been aware of the discussion on that talk page. 83.109.2.4 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, fair enough. In any case the issue of polling has been discussed thoroughly on the polling talk page, this isn't the place for a polling discussion...especially one that has very recently been resolved. You do however raise an interesting question as to what we do about the info box.

Do we:

a) Remove Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems or

b) Add Nigel Farage and UKIP

c) Stick with the status Quo until after the conference season

For now at least (especially since the summer is politically irrelevant) I think we should wait until after the conference season in September before re-assessing the info box. Although I do think it seems some what inevitable that UKIP should be added to the info box, that or Nick Clegg removed. As things stand, the status quo just seems completely untenable in the run up to the election. Owl In The House (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, UKIP should not be included in the infobox, at least not yet anyway. If they win a significant number of seats next year then there is justification for them to be included. However within the current parliament they have no seats, therefor there is currently no justification for them to be included. Same goes for the Green Party. Bluecrime 11:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluecrime (talk • contribs)

So the fact that UKIP was the largest party in the recent EU-elections are completely irrelevant to you? 83.109.2.4 (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Bluecrime. That is not the only criteria for deciding who goes in the info box and when they go in it and it certainly isn't the be all and end all. While I agree that we should probably hold off until the party conference season, I disagree with your reasoning. Owl In The House (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Green Party - TV debates

I have removed the boldly added section below added by User:JMPhillips92. I shall explain why;

"The Green Party of England and Wales has also requested to take part in the debates, citing the fact that they have an MP, Caroline Lucas, (unlike the UK Independence Party), 3 members of the European Parliament, many Councillors across the country (including being the largest party in Brighton and Hove), and polled third in the 2012 London Mayoral Election. Following the 2014 European Parliament election, they have also called for increased media coverage of the party in general, claiming that the fact they now poll at the same level or higher than the Liberal Democrats, and are the official opposition on a number of councils, provides a strong case for equal coverage."

The first thing to point out is that this is very poorly sourced. Indeed the only sources comes from an e-petition and a petition from a lobbying website, these are simply not considered to be reliable sources. Furthermore we have a very clear precedent of rejecting such sources, indeed if you look at the edit history of this article a Government e-petition was rejected for exactly the same purposes for UKIP about two years ago. This is also a clear example of Wikipedia being used to promote a partisan cause by using a link to the petition in the article,this is simply not on, it wasn't when it was proUKIP editors doing it and it still isn't now that proGreen editors are doing it.

Aside from the sourcing and the lack of encyclopedic relevance of the content, the manner in which this is written is just not appropriate for Wikipedia. The above text is clearly a political argument with a clear narrative trying to make a case for a partisan cause, it is not neutrally written. It is written more like an opinion piece for a newspaper article. May I remind you Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOTNEWS).

May I also point out that it is not a "fact" that the Green Party "now poll at the same level or higher than the Liberal Democrats", this is clearly illustrated by recent and historic opinion polls but proGreen editors seem to be incredibly selective over which polls they acknowledge. This is just one example of an unsubstantiatable and false claim...something that obviously has no place in an encyclopedia.

Of course the Green Party have "requested to take part in the debates", many parties have but that doesn't make it relevant or encyclopedic. There have been a lot of incidents over the last few months of this sort of proGreen Party editing. Recently a discussion has been concluded on the [page for the opinion poll article] and a comment from an RFC commenter summed it up in my view: "Honestly this seems very much to be a political dispute. From what I have displayed before me it seems listing the Green Party as other is standard not only on wikipedia but in the polls. I have to question if this is an attempt to further legitimize the Green Party. I feel they can do this without help from wikipedia. I can not recommend changing the status quo at the moment.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)"....seems very fitting in this case too.

Anyway, I have removed this section for now as it is clearly not appropriate. These proGreen edits have got to stop, that does not mean there is no place for the Green Party in this article but any edits such as this will simply just be removed, they're completely disproportionate and indeed inappropriate. Anyway just thought I'd put this on the talk page as opposed to quietly and sneakily removing it like some editors occasionally do. Owl In The House (talk) 14:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding UKIP to the info box

United Kingdom general election, 2015

7 May 2015
All 650 seats to the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority.
Leader David Cameron Ed Miliband Party Conservative Labour Leader since 6 December 2005 25 September 2010 Leader's seat Witney Doncaster North Last election 306 seats, 36.1% 258 seats, 29% Seats needed 20 68   Leader Nick Clegg Nigel Farage Party Liberal Democrats UKIP Leader since 18 December 2007 5 November 2010 Leader's seat Sheffield Hallam South East (MEP) Last election 57 seats, 23% 0 seats, 3.1% Seats needed 269 326
Incumbent Prime Minister David Cameron Conservative

Ok, so people have recently started adding UKIP into the info box again. I previously thought it would be better to hold off until after the summer, perhaps until the party conference season but since people are bringing it up now, I don't see any harm in the discussion starting. I've quickly thrown together a template info box, so that we have something to scrutinise the merits of. I'll not add my view yet...although I have expressed views on the matter previously. I'm merely getting the ball rolling for others to contribute to the discussion, instead of boldly editing and having their edits reversed without explanation or discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult choice. They will probably get only a tiny number of seats, or none at all, but a notable vote share. At present, my feeling is that most reliable sources talk about UKIP as a significant part of the election and so they should be included. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there any likeliness for Torey to make a pact with UKIP to seal a conservative government and keep Labour out? If there is any possibility for that, they can quickly become very relevant. How many votes do they need to get seats? 83.109.3.157 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In relation to the direct question at the end, there is no way to answer that as the number of votes a party needs for a seat is incalculable as it is a First Past the Post system on individual constituencies. A party could receive 2 million votes and receive no seats or a party could get 19,000 votes and get a seat. IT is an unanswerable question which has no relation to the influence of a party. Sport and politics (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Further to Sport and politics's answer, your question is not relevant because it is based on hearsay and opinion (hardly encyclopedic). If anyone has any source based arguments either way I would be most interested, I've tried to avoid being the one to get the ball rolling on that one, just thought I'd try facilitate contributions from others. Frankly, hearsay and opinion of "whats going to happen" should have no place in this discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 22:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

RS Say there are 4 main parties contesting this election. However they also say there are only 3 parties who stand a reasonable chance of being in the next government (though a few months before 2010 lib-dems prospects in this regard were the butt of every joke). For the time being, I'mma do something bold. Though probably uncontroversial. Iliekinfo (talk) 08:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, apparently my idea wasn't as much of a pro tem solution as I thought. I'd suggest removal of infobox entirely until we get consensus. It appears there's no more consensus to exclude ukip than there is to include. Iliekinfo (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Broken infobox

The infobox is broken, but looks the same for at least 500 edits so I suspect it's a problem with {{Infobox election}} rather than with the article's own code. Can anyone help? Haave also raised this at Template talk:Infobox election and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. PamD 10:37, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problem now been fixed: see Template_talk:Infobox_election#What.27s_wrong_at_Next_United_Kingdom_general_election.3F for details. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

326 seats are needed for a majority to form a government.

You can form a government without a (simple) majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.191.234 (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I have amended the text. Bondegezou (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)