Talk:United Kingdom by-election records

UK records page

Just thought it would be nice to have a records page....RodCrosby 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Warofdreams/Major party by-elections might be of some use. Warofdreams talk 03:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think we should divide the records in some way between current (post-1945) and historical? I think we need to provide a meaningful benchmark by which contemporary results can be judged, and the pre-1945 results are in the most part not really analogous to the present day for a host of reasons which I need not list. RodCrosby 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be unnecessary. The introduction you have written explains the situation clearly. While for some sections, things which have been rare in recent year were formerly common, and so a cut-off date will be required, it'd seem strange to me to divide everything in this manner. For example, the situations in 1929-31 and 1945-50 were in many respects quite comparable. Warofdreams talk 23:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Would argue Walsall North 1976 is not really relevant to incumbant did not contest and potentially misleading. Stonehouse was just having a laugh by joining the English National "Party". It was a safe Labour seat contested by both major parties.--I think the common understanding of incumbent is "the party which won the previous election" RodCrosby 20:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this would probably best be handled by demoting it to a brief footnote. Warofdreams talk 02:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

And 1945 isn't some magical cutoff date, although it was a significant change and represents a natural boundary. Multi-member constituencies persisted for a Parliament, as an example. Morwen - Talk 10:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• Similar page now up; please update in the same spirit as this page

Uk_general_election_records

• RodCrosby 01:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the Bermondsey by-election not the largest ever swing? It had a far larger shift in the vote than Liverpool Wavertree. Can someone good with wikipedia please update this? 91.85.170.214 (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

it is convention that swing is really only meaningful between Labour and Con, and was defined solely in terms of those two parties. However, in common parlance it is often used between any two parties. Perhaps a separate table could be inserted, but I'd prefer that the original definition is maintained. RodCrosby (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor parties section merge

The reverted edit undoes a slight "merge" I made, which brought togehter two sections with serious overlap. For example, I think there are 3 by-elections listed for almost the exact same reason. It seems highly "hair splitting" to list by-elections won by "first timers" AND "minor parties", as though both of these are clear and absolute different considerations.

doktorb _words^deeds 18:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

conversely there are examples which do fall into more than one category, and some duplication may be necessary. I created the initial structure, but as examples are added I can see some will cross boundaries. Perhaps the structure does need altering. Can we discuss these things here first? Some are quite nuanced and open to debate. e.g. Disputes/principles. Which one was Lincoln 1973? It appears on both lists, for some reason. Are these categories for practical purposes indistinguishable, or are there only partisan answers to the question? They will usually be a bit of both, I would have thought. Should these categories therefore be merged into "Disputes or assertions of principle"? Davis is a case in point RodCrosby (talk) 22:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the reply. To be honest I am a great fan of this article but going across the whole thing objectively we are in danger of completely going against WP:List (esp. section 4.3) and WP:NOT#DIR. The sections I attempted to merge may have a nuance of difference, but to have some duplicated by-elections within paragraphs of each other for reasons rahter subtle even for a UK audience seems wasteful. I know WP is not paper but it's not a dump for every curiosity either. I began the "clean up" to sortable tables, but if I kept spending time doing the whole article I'd never sleep! What I think is needed, from all of us working on this, is an honest appriasial of its nature, and a good sweep up and clean. You've been working really hard, so I hope you appriciate that this isn't a slight against you, I'm just concerned about how the article currently looks, and how we could bring some sections together to stick within guide lines. doktorb _words^deeds 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Government coming 5th - is it a record?

Is Henley a record? Can't see a relevant section. PamD (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's record for Labour, and for a government in an English by-election. For a "major" party, it equals the Liberals ranking at Walsall North, 1976. I'll update in a moment RodCrosby (talk) 07:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not UK wide - it's joint with the Conservatives' performance in North Down in 1995. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked again they did even worse in Upper Bann in 1990. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I know, but hardly comparable. The mainland parties do not regularly contest the province. RodCrosby (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In fairness, during the early 1990s, the Tories were regularly contesting seats in Northern Ireland, although usually with little success. The Liberals/Lib Dems have also come fifth in Scottish and Welsh by-elections on several occasions, and sixth at the Hamilton South by-election, 1999 and the Glasgow Camlachie by-election, 1948. I've got more details of results along these lines at User:Warofdreams/Major party by-elections. Warofdreams talk 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Numbers on each row

Is there any reason my edit was reverted, without explanation? It seems an obvious improvement, making it clear how many people stood in each by-election. Warofdreams talk 09:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

That was me. I think it's clear now who stood in each by-election. With fresh eyes on it, I see "12 - Croydon North West", and then nothing until "11 - Bromley and Chislehurst". I can't make any other conclusion that the gap reflects the "tie" you often get in a chart, then everything between top to bottom is the same thing. I think the implication that the gaps represent the same number is clear enough doktorb _words^deeds 10:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the chart can be interpreted as it stands, but what's the problem with adding the numbers? That makes it easier to interpret, to my eyes. That would also allow the table to be made sortable. Warofdreams talk 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that a sortable table could be good, though it is already effectively sorted into number of candidates, and then into a form of chronological order. Having "11" and "10" and the rest repeated numerous times would look a bit messy, in my opinion. It falls down on personal prejudices, I accept, so not sure how to resolve this! I prefer having a table which can't be sorted because for the information it provides, sorting doesn't give much more info doktorb _words^deeds 15:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Manchester Central - Misc. Notable Results

We seem to have a disagreement over the inclusion of Manchester Central in Misc. Notable Results near the bottom of the page. I don't see how this is a "miscellaneous" result as the fall in LD share is covered elsewhere. This section is not intended for large falls in major party shares, as there's a section for that on the page - this section covers mainly changes in position of the main parties and a few other oddments. In this case, the LD position didn't change, so I don't see that it really qualifies. Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frinton100 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, no problem with that. It just seemed that various editors were trying to suppress the fact, both in the vote-share table and elsewhere. Agree it shoudn't be mentioned twice! RodCrosby (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

By-elections having national significance

Does anyone have any thoughts on this section? It strikes me that 'national significance' is something of a matter of opinion. Although most of the by-elections on that list were historically significant for some reason or another, I'm not sure that the Wirral South by-election, 1997 belongs there. The only one since then listed is the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, 2008. Going down the List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–present), here are a few other recent ones that could be considered 'nationally significant':

• Brent East by-election, 2003 - large swing from Labour to Liberal Democrats demonstrated anger at the government over the Iraq war.
• Glasgow East by-election, 2008 - a surprising loss to the SNP showed Labour's vulnerability in their Scottish heartlands, confirmed by the Scottish Parliament election in 2011.
• Bradford West by-election, 2012 - another one in which an apparently safe Labour seat proved unexpectedly vulnerable, raising questions about the reliability of their support among Asian voters.
• Corby by-election, 2012 - this result was widely expected, but it's significant as the first gain by Labour from the Conservatives since 1997, in a key swing seat that they lost at the previous general election.
• Rotherham by-election, 2012 and Middlesbrough by-election, 2012 - OK, it's a little early to have historical perspective here, but the 2nd place achieved by UKIP in both seats seems pretty notable.

I'm not going to add these myself, but I was just wondering what others think about what recent by-elections have been 'nationally significant'. Robofish (talk) 14:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I think less is more. Most of the 'nationally-significant' by-elections can only be seen as such in retrospect, sometimes years later. I don't think routine gains and losses fall into the category, really. Preferably we should use reliable scholarly sources where others have opined that a by-election was significant, because it led to a change of policy or leadership, or presaged a fundamental change in the dynamics of British politics. I don't think any you mention really meet those conditions - yet, although some of them, but not all, are indeed remarkable results... RodCrosby (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Minor Parties and Number of Candidates

Have just added another UKIP performance to the "minor parties strong performances table". It seems there are at least three different ways results for individual parties are ordered - chronologically, alphabetically and by vote share. Which one is best to use - my preference is chronological.

Also, this table is getting quite unwieldy now - would it be better off keeping it to parties polling over 10%, though I appreciate this would miss out some interesting results.

On a similar issue, would it be better to restrict the "most candidates" table to those with 12+, perhaps with notes about City of London & Westminster South and Lambeth Central? 10 candidates is hardly notable now in a by-election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frinton100 (talk • contribs) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

In both cases, i say we should remain conservative. Saving a deposit if you're not already in the Commons is a notable achievement, so keeping all the records make sense to me. In terms of candidates, I agree that 10 is no longer as unusual as it was, but again, it is a notable number. I'd be willing to review that though doktorb _words^deeds 10:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Ellen Wilkinson

The inclusion of Ellen Wilkinson in the list of By-Elections caused by suicide is legally wrong. Although her overdose was said to be triggered by a relationship with married Herbert Morrison, according to The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography her death was declared accidental at inquest. The medication was being taken while ill with multiple respiratory ailments. It surely puts her on the same footing as her partisan Dr Richard Clitheroe who was found to have taken an accidental overdose while 'run down and jaded', likewise triggering a by-election in his own seat in the same year.Cloptonson (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Michael Collins

Under the sub-section "Seats Left Vacant" Michael Collins (Irish leader) is stated, among the list of Sinn Fein MPs who did not take the Westminster seats to which they had been elected in 1918, to have been "assassinated on 22 August 1922". Irish readers and users may strongly disagree with this description because he is officially considered in the Republic to have been "killed in action" during the Irish Civil War, as he was on duty in an ambushed convoy as Commander-in-Chief of the Irish National Army when he was killed by IRA opponents of Treaty whereby the Irish Free State was agreed. His Wikipedia biography infobox gives the years he held the Westminster Cork South seat as 1918-1921, indicating he relinquished the seat in the year before his death on establishment of the Irish Free State.Cloptonson (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Vote share increases where parties had previously not contested

My removal of Clacton, Rochester and Strood and Paisley (1961) from the "highest vote share increases" table was not vandalism. It is because where a party has not contested a previous election, they are not considered to have an "increase". This is the precedent that we tend to stick to in UK election articles; hence use of "N/A" in election boxes, for example the Greens in Bootle (UK Parliament constituency) in 2015.

There is a separate section for parties that won having not contested the previous election further down the page, which Clacton and R&S are included in. Frinton100 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom by-election records. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928094928/http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf to http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-01493.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/1765/mid-ulster-tuv-chair-signs-lutton%27s-nomination-papers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Lowest share of the vote (major parties)

I note the section Lowest share of the vote for major parties has a 2% threshold. Where does this arbitrary figure come from? Surely 5%, the lost deposit threshold, would be more appropriate, especially given the rarity in which major parties poll this low? AusLondonder (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Temporal scope

The header section (which I've split) stated that most of the records were post-1945. However there are a lot of records, which I've started to remove, from prior to this. Some sections, seemingly arbitrarily, explicitly switch this scope to post-1918.

We should have a discussion as to what the scope should be, and then apply this consistently across the article.

Personally, the Representation of the People Act 1918/end of First World War seems the better cutoff point to me. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 14:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Most by-elections in a parliamentary term

Just curious as to whether anyone knows which parliament would have had the most by-elections over the course of the term?Guyb123321 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Since the war it's the 1959-1946 Parliament with 61. [1] However it's likely to be beaten by an earlier Parliament in the days when they lasted longer, there were more mid term departures for various incompatible posts (government boards, judges, colonial officials etc...) and the requirement for newly appointed ministers to recontest would have also thrown in a big chunk especially if the government changed mid Parliament. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sortable tables

Table sorting is currently inconsistently applied in this article, with some tables being sortable and others not being sortable. It seems this is a useful feature to enable sorting by winning party, losing party, year of election and so on, so it would make sense to add this to all tables in the article. I will do so, unless anyone can put forward any good reason to omit this feature. Suttonpubcrawl (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Most rejected papers?

The recent Southend West by-election was notable for having 1084 rejected papers, or 6.8% of the valid votes. I have been unable to find out whether this is a record. Are there any data on this available? GDBarry (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not. There were over 3000 in the April 1981 Fermanagh and South Tyrone by-election, another contest sat out by significant parties. But normally data on rejected papers is not reported and figures are all over the place. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. That was on a much higher turnout though - it was only 5.5% of the valid votes. This result could still be a significant one. GDBarry (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Rutherglen and Hamilton West by-election

Since that recent by-election, it had been hailed as major milestone in both UK and Scottish politics, more so as a strong sign of Labour making a comeback to Scotland ahead of the next general election. Should that be classed as something with "national significance"? I believe so, but I'd like to hear what others think. Bryn89 (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, but these things are usually seen in retrospect. Suggest we wait to see the outcome of the next UK general election, and the impact that any anticipated Labour revival in Scotland has on the overall UK result. If Labour win by a country mile on English seats, for example, the Scottish dimension becomes moot. RodCrosby (talk) 13:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Henderson: Former MPs making a comeback at a by-election

Presumably Arthur Henderson should appear four times in the table, representing the times he won a by-election having been previously lost his seat somewhere else at a general election (not including his first by-election victory). 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:E9E9:BDE1:3130:BFAB (talk) 18:00, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I completed the table back to 1945, with just a sprinkle of notables prior to that. RodCrosby (talk) 18:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Rochdale

The recent by-election in Rochdale should be included in the list of large swings, see swing (United Kingdom), the figure is calculable. Actually most of the by-elections near the top of this list are where the winning party did not stand at the previous general election e.g. Lincoln, Clacton. PatGallacher (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)