Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

2024 United Kingdom general election

← 2019 4 July 2024 Next →
← outgoing members elected members →
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326[n 1] seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Turnout	59.9% ( 7.4 pp)[2]
First party Second party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Party Labour Conservative Leader since 4 April 2020 24 October 2022 Leader's seat Holborn and St Pancras Richmond and Northallerton Last election 202 seats, 32.1% 365 seats, 43.6% Seats won 411[a] 121 Seat change 211[b] 251[c] Popular vote 9,731,363 6,827,112 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% Swing 1.7 pp 19.9 pp   Third party Fourth party   Leader Ed Davey Other Parties and Party Liberal Democrats Speaker Leader since 27 August 2020 Leader's seat Kingston and Surbiton see results Last election 11 seats, 11.6% 72 seats, 9.5% Seats won 72 46 Seat change 64[d] 26 Popular vote 3,519,163 8,198,624 Percentage 12.2% 30.4% Swing 0.6 pp

As a way of resolving the conflict about inclusion of other parties in the Infobox, I have here used "| leader =" 4 as a device to easily access their results. There may be a better way of doing this, but it works to my eye. Whereas the various aguments have been made above, it seems rather perverse to exclude (to name 3) the SNP, #4 and important in previous elections, Reform UK and the Greens, which achived 4.1 and 1.8 million votes respectively. The voting system that created these paradoxical results is almost certain to be a matter of debate over the coming months/years and I think it is important to have easy access to the numbers. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not meant to contain links to sections in the article, as per MOS:INFOBOX. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This issue still needs resolving and the MOS guidance is not absolute: "Avoid links to sections within the article" and "There will be exceptions ..." Roy Bateman (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It would be a novel solution, but I'd support it as a compromise. I think we should also apply it to other British elections though. And I'd prefer it be in a 2x2 format, with Lab and Con at the top, and Lib Dem and Other on the bottom. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 01:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you: this idea is growing on me - and I don't think the infobox can stay as it is. Personally. I would prefer the 'top 4' over just 3, in terms of seats in Parliament. It is worth taking a look at the WP treatment for elections around the 1931 United Kingdom general election: another period of political flux. If there were just 3 parties, how would we 'see' the rise of Labour (or Sinn Féin in 1918, if we exclude Ireland)? Roy Bateman (talk) 04:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

How would you see that? By reading the article. The infobox cannot and should not try to cover everything that happened. Our main focus should be on the article.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with the current 1931 infobox. The seats were a bit more equally shared out then than now. But I do think we should stop trying to create an infobox that covers every possible angle. Bondegezou (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Of course the infobox cannot cover "every possible angle", but from the comments above, there is strong dissatisfaction with displaying data on just 3 parties (jointly sharing the lowest vote share in recent history). As a reductio ad absurdum and since the UK has FPTP voting (which promotes the two-party system), why not just display Labour and the Conservatives? It seems to me that one of the outstanding features of the 2024 election is the success of 'other parties' (up to 8 of them): in the interests of a balanced article, this somehow needs to be indicated without making the infobox unwieldy. I repeat, nearly 28% of the votes (more than the Conservatives received) should not be just 'tucked away'. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

While this was published prior to this election, it's still an accurate article on how the current British situation gives rise to something slightly different from a pure two-party system. The seat situation in the current election is broadly similar to those in the elections before the paper was written. [1] AnOpenBook (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you - interesting paper. Some might now argue that the UK has a 1-2 and 3-4 halves system! Perhaps I should have written "FPTP voting (which effectively promotes a two-party system)"? Roy Bateman (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I want to get peoples' opinions on this proposed solution, to see if it might be the consensus solution we're seeking. We're certainly nowhere near that for the other proposals, A-F. Here are a few options we could do:

• 1. Move forward with Option G, but change the formatting to 3x2 (note: map to be added)
• 2. Move forward with Option G, but change the formatting to 2x2 (as illustrated: map to be added)
• 3. Move forward with Option G, but change the formatting to 3x3
• 4. Move forward with Option G, but change the formatting to include Reform, Green, Sinn Fein, or another sixth party
• 5. Do not move forward with Option G

AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• I vote 5. Kiwichris (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• I vote 5, and oppose all the other options GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  As in, you oppose options A-F as well? AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 10:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• 5. While I understand the idea of this, for such a format to work you would really need to make a change to the template itself. The proposal shown here feels too much like an awkward workaround, without being much of an improvement. This is especially the case when the vote shares and seat totals for other parties can be deduced from the number earned by the largest parties, and in any case read further down in the article. Gust Justice (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

  You are probably correct, but reprogamming templates is beyond my technical abilities! I have just tried to create a 'quick fix compromise' here. I think it may also be useful for some other post 2010 elections. Roy Bateman (talk) 04:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 5. This is like the 2x2 format which hasn't been that popular in the RfC but while highlighting additional informational that doesn't provide any real context. As Gust Justice pointed out above, this would need a modified template rather than trying to fit into the current one. Also why is John Swinney's image larger than the other leaders? I assume this is a formatting error. Given there is already an ongoing RfC, and this proposal isn't formally a part of it, I also think it's best to let that play out first before providing further proposals, as even if there was consensus for this proposal, it shouldn't be implemented based on being a sub-proposal of the ongoing RfC that takes priority. Ultimately, if there is no consensus to changing the infobox, then the status quo will remain, which isn't the worst decision. CNC (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
• 5 (and no support for 1-4). This is like option B (which has not gathered much consensus) but with the addition of an "Others" field. Neither TIE nor TILE are thought for this (technically TILE could handle it, but then what'd be the point of it altogether...). It's also visually appalling and is seemingly an awkward workaround: on which basis is the SNP left out of "Others" but not any other party? I also contest that "we're certainly nowhere near" a consensus solution for the other proposals: option A has a clear advantage over the others (as well as being the status quo version currently in use for 1945-2015) and, as of currently, is the obvious consensus solution. On the other hand, this option G dispels none of the concerns brought forward by other discussion participants (most of which revolve around showing Reform and/or the Greens if the SNP is also shown); option G will further aggravate such a concern and piss off everyone. A compromise solution would mean that, while almost no one is left 100% satisfied with it, it would be the least dissatisfying of all: I currently see this as the perfect choice for leaving people 100% dissatisfied. Impru20^talk 11:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• 5. This solves nothing. My opinion on B (inadequate overview and NPOV-incompliant) applies for this one too - here it implies the rest of the seats are (with the possible exception of the Speaker) one bloc when it couldn't be further from the truth.

I would actually prefer F over G, and F is by far my least favourite out of the original six proposals. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• 5. It obfuscates more than it helps. "Others" getting almost as much as the first party? It would better to accept 2024 as a step change in the political landscape, and choose a format which recognises that. RodCrosby (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Nearly 7.5 million (28%) votes was considerably more than the Conservatives received - I suggest that giving these numbers clarifies why "2024 [was] a step change in the political landscape". Roy Bateman (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 - but of course not "exactly how Roy Bateman laid it out" - this was merely for illustration. The maps etc. would go at the bottom. If I understand correctly, immediately after the results were anounced, it was a 3 x 2 table, with the top 6 parties included - was there ever a consensus that the current ("Option A") format be adopted? Roy Bateman (talk) 06:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: illustration above changed to 2x2 (as suggested) - consistent with 2015 - and wording survey options modified. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 United Kingdom general election

← 2019 4 July 2024 Next →
← outgoing members elected members →
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326[n 1] seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Turnout	59.9% ( 7.4 pp)[2]
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Leader since 4 April 2020 24 October 2022 27 August 2020 Leader's seat Holborn and St Pancras Richmond and Northallerton Kingston and Surbiton Last election 202 seats, 32.1% 365 seats, 43.6% 11 seats, 11.6% Seats won 411[a] 121 72 Seat change 211[b] 251[c] 64[d] Popular vote 9,731,363 6,827,112 3,519,163 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% 12.2% Swing 1.7 pp 19.9 pp 0.6 pp   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader John Swinney Mary Lou McDonald Nigel Farage Party SNP Sinn Féin Reform UK Last election 48 seats, 3.9% 7 seats, 1.1% 0 seats, 2.0% Seats won 9 7 5 Seat change 39 5 Popular vote 724,758 210,891 4,117,221 Percentage 2.5% 0.7% 14.3% Swing 1.3 pp 0.1 pp 12.3 pp   Seventh party Eighth party Ninth party   Leader Gavin Robinson Carla Denyer Adrian Ramsay Rhun ap Iorwerth Party DUP Green Plaid Cymru Last election 8 seats, 1.2% 1 seat, 2.6% 4 seats, 0.5% Seats won 5 4 4 Seat change 3 3 Popular vote 172,058 1,841,888 194,811 Percentage 0.6% 6.4% 0.7% Swing 0.2 pp 3.8 pp 0.2 pp
A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency
Composition of the House of Commons after the election
Prime Minister before election Rishi Sunak Conservative Prime Minister after election Keir Starmer Labour

Just throwing another idea out there. Bit of an awkward compromise but it would be possible to include the nine parties whilst trimming down the info enough that it doesn't take up as much space, like this. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 00:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Let's call this Option H for the purposes of discussion. Personally actually quite like this one. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a better proposal than Option G by far, but I'm not convinced people will go for it. If we're at the point of preparing alternative proposals, then it'd be worth also considering the 2x3 format of this (as below but without the bottom row). In the RfC there appears to be more support for 2x3 than 3x3, so that option might receive better support. I otherwise think that when the RfC is closed, the closure will ideally can highlight options that were the most popular, so that a refined RfC can take place based on those options (if there is energy for that). CNC (talk) 11:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

With 6 seats, shouldn't the Independents come-in at 6th place? Roy Bateman (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Independents are not a political party. Kiwichris (talk) 06:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I like it. Independents are an oddity... I would suggest they are not a coherent group, so they shouldn't come in a TIE infobox as if they were a party. I've never seen independents listed in a TIE infobox in that manner, I think, although I have seen them included in a TILE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I like this option a lot, and agree that Independents aren't a party, and should be treated as a series of 1-person groups rather than a 6-seat grouping. GenevieveDEon (talk) 09:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Especially since not all 6 run on the same platform. Alex Easton is an ex-DUP member who's decidedly divorced on platform messaging from the other five; while Jeremy Corbyn is an ex-Labour incumbent winning re-election, distinguishing from the other four pro-Palestine independents. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This is basically option E but without the leaders' pics (which will mislead casual readers into thinking that pics are missing and should be added). So it's a no from me. Impru20^talk 11:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

If we're going with this, why not add in the pictures as well? We aren't limited for space on the article as is. Nonetheless, I think this will inevitably bring up NPOV discussions that are only solved by Option F (or, less strongly, A). AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

With images would be Option E, this is a separate proposal. CNC (talk) 12:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

So it's the same than E but without images, which basically means to paint the elephant in the room in pink so that we somehow don't see the elephant. Impru20^talk 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

This feels like a downgrade from Option E. While I am neutral but receptive on E, Option H is a no from me for the same reasons as Impru. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of which parties to depict, I would honestly prefer option E to this. Not showing the images for some of the parties, while making the infobox more compact, awkwardly treats some party leaders differently for no apparent reason, as though there are two categories of parties. Gust Justice (talk) 16:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Another proposed solution: is it the consensus solution we're seeking, based on the comments above:

• 1. Move forward with Option H, as laid it out here
• 2. Go back to Option E (restore pictures)
• 3. Move forward with Option H, but add Independents, Plaid Cymru and SDLP
• 4. Do not move forward with Option H

If you vote for option 4, can you suggest anything better? Roy Bateman (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

• Option 1 has my votes, although option 2 is fine too. I'm not sure what you mean in option 3, by 'Add Independents, Plaid Cymru, and SDLP'. Plaid Cymru are already in, in 9th place, in the existing proposed layout. The independents are singletons, as has been explained already, and the SDLP only got two seats, so would stay behind Plaid Cymru and not feature. GenevieveDEon (talk) 07:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4, keep the status quo Option A as bit fit for now, followed by 2x3 as potential improvement.. CNC (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4, as laid out above. This is just option E (which does not solve the issues raised in the discussion above) but without the pictures. It does not provide any meaningful change and is prone to casual confusion since it's difficult to understand and entirely out of consistency with other articles (once time passes and the article becomes stable, casual readers will think the pictures are missing by accident and will attempt to add them, thus making it fertile ground for edit warring). Options A to F at the very least propose different infobox configurations with their own rationales; from G onwards we are basically discussing slight, decorative adjustments of these options (as I said yesterday: painting the elephant in the room in pink so that we somehow pretend that the elephant does not exist). On my suggestion, that would be my !vote in the discussion above: Strong support for A, weak oppose to C, strong oppose to B/D and then E, strongly oppose to F. Impru20^talk 11:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4: I think Option G is a better way to save space while providing clarity. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Option 4: This is just a diluted version of option E which is already one of the least popular options. Kiwichris (talk) 06:18, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

2024 United Kingdom general election

← 2019 4 July 2024 Next →
← outgoing members elected members →
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326[n 2] seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Registered	48,214,128
Turnout	59.9% ( 7.4 pp)[4]
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Leader since 4 April 2020 24 October 2022 27 August 2020 Leader's seat Holborn and St Pancras Richmond and Northallerton Kingston and Surbiton Last election 202 seats, 32.1% 365 seats, 43.6% 11 seats, 11.6% Seats won 411† 121 72 Seat change 211‡ 251‡ 64‡ Popular vote 9,731,363 6,827,112 3,519,163 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% 12.2% Swing 1.7 pp 19.9 pp 0.6 pp
Party Leader % Seats +/– SNP John Swinney 2.5 9 −39 Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald 2.5 7 0 Reform UK Nigel Farage 14.3 5 +5 Democratic Unionist Gavin Robinson 0.8 5 −3 Green Carla Denyer Adrian Ramsay 6.4 4 +3 Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth 0.7 4 0 SDLP Colum Eastwood 0.3 2 0 Alliance Naomi Long 0.4 1 0 Ulster Unionist Doug Beattie 0.3 1 0 TUV Jim Allister 0.2 1 0 Independent — 2 6 +6 Speaker Lindsay Hoyle 0.1 1 0 This lists parties that won seats. See the complete results below. A map presenting the results of the election, by party of the MP elected from each constituency Prime Minister before Prime Minister after Rishi Sunak Conservative Keir Starmer Labour

As a compromise option, this infobox uses TIE to display the top three parties with the other parties displayed in a TILE module. This isn't my preferred solution, but I think it does solve the issue of setting an inclusion boundary, while keeping the legibility of TIE for the main parties (unlike option F) and not taking up too much space (about the same as a 3x2 infobox, unlike option E). Just realised the number of infoboxes embedded on this page makes it a bit hard to find, so i've put a link to it here. Thoughts? CipherRephic (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My thought is that this is the best proposal by some margin. It visually indicates the massive statistical outliers of the big three without relegating the others to being unworthy of mention in the infobox. I’ll be changing my vote. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Opposed to this. While I commend the good will behind this, we have gone beyond the point of reasonable discussion here; as I said in a comment previously, all options beyond F (G, H and now I) are mix ups/variants of options A-F, so it means they solve none of the concerns brought by them. In particular, the concerns over the use of TILE remain the exact same with this option, to which you now will have to add where to draw the line on which parties you will show with one format and which ones will go the other way: it should be the SNP? Why not Reform? Why not the Greens? This is also very out of consistency with infoboxes for two centuries-worth of elections in the UK. Not a good proposal, in my opinion. Impru20^talk 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

It's a messy, shitty compromise, but maybe that's what we need at this point. For what it's worth, this might be the only option that satisfies both NPOV and UNDUE in a way that makes people the least unhappy. I think coming up with a proper solution is better and more important than "following consistency". AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

A messy and shitty compromise is not a proper solution. Needless to say, I don't see the benefit of this "synthesis" style infobox, if it were of any value this style of template would have been a created a long-time ago. I admire the good faith attempts of editors to discover consensus when these is little to none in the RfC, but so far these proposals G-I have overall been worse (less supported) than the originals. At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, it might be worth accepting that based on the comments from the RfC, none of these proposals (or future proposals) are likely to be popular. CNC (talk) 20:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

If it's a "messy and shitty compromise" then it's not a solution. Options A-F may be agreeable or not, but these are not as messy nor as shitty as the ones from G onwards. Infuriating everyone so that everyone is as displeased as possible is not a compromise. Impru20^talk 09:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, if it truly does piss off a lot of people it's not a solution. Unfortunately we are no closer to a consensus or solution than before in that case. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 00:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I can see the merits of this. It looks messy but it does partially solve the issues at hand. While I am opposed to full TILE in British elections, a hybridised TIE/TILE setup can work in an election where nobody can come to an infobox consensus. SNP, Sinn Féin, Reform, and Green's surges all are notable, and it can show the surges while partially preserving the format.

We'll see how this goes. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 04:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I admire the ingenuity, but I think it will confuse readers who won’t have seen anything similar before, so it’s a no from me. If you want to show all the parties, just use TILE, as dozens of election articles do. If you want TIE, then just show the big seat winners, as dozens of election articles do. Bondegezou (talk) 07:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

This is functionally a variant of option G and an improvement on the staus quo: which many editors are unhappy about (myself included) since it doesn't adequately describe the complexity of the results. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

TILE listing every party describes the complexity of the results, if that’s what you want. There’s no extra complexity described by this hybrid. Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I beg to differ: the % and seats columns add a lot to the description of results. Roy Bateman (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).