This article was nominated for deletion on 30 August 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24062021. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Just thought it would be nice to have a records page.... RodCrosby 14:07, 20 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)
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)
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)
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)
Is Henley a record? Can't see a relevant section. PamD ( talk) 06:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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':
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.tuv.org.uk/press-releases/view/1765/mid-ulster-tuv-chair-signs-lutton%27s-nomination-papersWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)