Talk:2015 United Kingdom general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article nominee
Not listed
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 8, 2015
.Current status: Former good article nominee


Section on media coverage

I've added a section on media coverage of the election. There are lots of reliable sources on it and, as the media is considered to be 'importan[t] to democratic life' (IPPR report [2015], p. 30) and 'essential to democracy, and a democratic election is impossible without media' (ACE encyclopedia entry 'Media and elections'), I thought it would make a useful, interesting and important addition. I've also added two tables in the Endorsements section. The tables -- on which parties the main daily and Sunday newspapers endorsed -- are taken from the main article on endorsements during this election campaign. I've included them here because (1.), considering the importance of the media in democracy and the elections, I thought this would be useful and important to include directly in this article; and (2.), in my opinion, it makes the main part of the other article more readily available (whilst providing extra detail if people want to click through to the full article on endorsements), which makes this article read more easily without having to go to a different article (this is following the precedent of other sections of this article, which link to another, main article of the topic but also provide an overview/the most pertinent information: e.g., the sections on MPs not standing for re-election, Contesting political parties and candidates, Television debates, and Opinion polling). I hope these decisions and edits are OK. --Woofboy (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Party use of social media in campaigns

The 2015 election was expected to be the 'social media election' (see, e.g., C. Byrne, 'Getting Engaged? The Relationship between Traditional, New Media, and the Electorate during the 2015 UK General Election' (Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Nov. 2015)). It would be good to see information included in this article about the parties' use of social media in their campaigning, and about the public's use of social media, too. --Woofboy (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from
Carlisle principle

With this edit, I merged the text from the Carlisle principle article, which is now a redirect to the 'Constitutional affairs' section. Thanks, Amkilpatrick (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP?

Not a fan of the party at all. But given that they won a significant amount of votes and played a visible role in the media coverage of this election surely they should be included in the infobox? Or at least in the infobox for 2015 United Kingdom general election in England? --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 03:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Continuing from some of the discussion held on a recent RfC inspired by the 2021 Canadian federal election's article's infobox, I think that UKIP certainly has crossed the threshold of noteworthiness to be included in the lead infobox for this article. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (and have added data) - deciding which parties to include can be problematic: how about parties with >1 million votes? ... in which case add Greens, but N. Ireland parties gained more seats. Roy Bateman (talk) 07:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support for UKIP inclusion. This was discussed back on its day and resulted in a divided outcome on whether UKIP should be in or not. Much has come to pass since then, and retrospectively it's fairly obvious that UKIP was very significant heading into this election and scored a very significant popular vote total (even if it did not secure any seat by virtue of the electoral system). Nine years later, the 2024 UK election may bring further stress to the view that parties securing zero seats but 10-15% of the share should not be added to infoboxes. Impru20talk 15:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Impru20. — Czello (music) 15:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless other parties that won equal number of seats are included. Pretty fatuous arguments above: which party had more media coverage is obviously a value judgement that depends on which media are included and what metric is used for degree of coverage. What was "significant" is again a value judgment: there's nothing clear about whether UKIP was significant and no argument is made above to support this notion. The idea of >1 million votes is not bad, especially given that those are very clear outliers (the next has <200k). Cambial — foliar❧ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost 4 million votes and being the third political force of the country in vote share in the election is not "value judgement", it is a real metric. The article has 77 mentions of UKIP (16 as reference titles alone), it appears in maps and charts through the article (as well as in related articles such as Opinion polling for the 2015 United Kingdom general election) and its full results are represented at constituency level at Results of the 2015 United Kingdom general election, greatly exceeding almost any other parties but the Conservatives and Labour. What is clear is that it has a measurable significance that is represented everywhere but in the infobox due to criteria that are applied in a very rigid manner. Impru20talk 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3.9m votes but only one seat, so its political force was 1/650 or just over 0.15%. Exactly the same political force as the green party at the same election. Thus the claim that it is "significant" remains a value judgement. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, if it's just 0.15% of the seats, why does it have so much coverage throughout the article? Surely there must be something else, right? Remember: an infobox must summarize the article. It's weird for a party to have so much in-wiki election coverage, win millions of votes and score third and then be entirely absent from the infobox. It's one way or the other; its relevance cannot be perfectly measurable for article coverage, then very difficult to ascertain for infobox inclusion. Impru20talk 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excitable, eager supporters? It's probably excessive coverage, but that's not relevant. Your claim that an infobox must summarize the article is incorrect. The
purpose of the infobox is to summarise key facts that appear in the article. The key facts are already summarised. A single seat, where other parties held several times that number, is not key. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:49, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Is getting 10-20% in opinion polling "eager supporters"? Is getting almost 4 million votes and becoming the third political party of the country in vote share terms not a key fact of the election? You have depicted very well what I did mean when I spoke about applying criteria in a very rigid manner. Seat count, while an important metric, is not the only metric of significance come an election. Impru20talk 15:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion polling is irrelevant once the election result is in (see revealed preference). Does a million votes translate to legislative influence, or any political power at all? No. Only seats do. FPTP is fucking stupid. But it is the system, like it or not. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Opinion polling is part of an election. 2) The popular vote is part of the election result.
Such a strict application of specific criteria lead us to re-interpret what an election is about and forget that seats are still a particular translation of the popular vote result according to the electoral system. I am not denying that the seat count is relevant in an election. You are denying that the popular vote share is relevant. That's a clear difference in how we both see an election (which is neither good nor bad, just different). Impru20talk 17:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am denying that. I deny it because it's a fact that the popular vote share is irrelevant. The purpose of a UK general election is to determine the constituent members of the house of commons. The only relevant factor that determines the constituent members is who wins the seats. The popular vote tally has no influence on the outcome. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popular vote share is not irrelevant, how do you think parties get their seats from? It obviously has a significance. As said, I am not denying that an election determines the constituent members of parliament. You are denying that the popular vote share has any relevance (to which I disagree). I have a broad vision that sees a benefit in considering both. You are applying a (very) strict vision which (in my view) thwarts a relevant part of the election. That's my point all along. But as said, we have different visions. Impru20talk 17:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that you disagree. But your claim is factually incorrect. Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies. National vote share is irrelevant. The seats are determined by first-past-the-post, a system in which the national vote share has zero influence on the outcome that is the purpose of the election. Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats. But it's not a relevant factor and thus they obtained one seat. Cambial — foliar❧ 17:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim is not incorrect, because what I am saying is that popular vote is important for getting seats, and you saying Parties get their seats from vote share in individual constituencies basically acknowledges that. Parties getting 0 votes get no seats. Parties getting millions of votes can get seats (or not, depending on the electoral system, but obtaining millions of votes is surely a first step towards that goal). I do understand how the electoral system works. I understand what FPTP is. I understand that translating popular vote into seats is one of the most important aspects of the election. I am not denying none of that, what I say is that it is not the only factor for relevance in an election, which is what you say.
Were the popular vote tally a relevant factor, in this particular election UKIP would have obtained eighty-one seats. This claim makes no sense, as you both acknowledge the importance of popular vote (UKIP's share would equal to 81 seats under a different system, which is quite a lot) while attempting to minimize it. But as I said, I am not denying this. My take is that both views are compatible. And so it looks from the election coverage as it currently stands. Impru20talk 17:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You claim popular vote is important for getting seats. You're referring to national vote share. It's not important. Nowhere did I "acknowledge" something which does not exist: "the importance of popular vote". I observed that in a different system it would have importance. But that system is not used, and never has been: thus in actual reality it is irrelevant. In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats. So getting millions of votes can get you nowhere. Conversely, a party could have 0.6% vote share and win eight seats, or 0.3% (less than 100k votes) and win three seats, which is exactly what happened in this particular election. So the national vote share can vary by a factor of more than 100 and bring about entirely opposite results: it is not a determinant of the outcome. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:16, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not important but Farage was in the debates when his party had... how many, 2 seats from by-elections? While parties like DUP or SF weren't. And we are not talking about what-ifs here: this happened, and this was part of the election (which includes, but is far from being limited to, a vote-to-seat conversion).
In fact it's entirely plausible that a party could have 30 to 35 percent vote share (10 million votes) and win zero seats. So, you are telling me that you would leave a party with 10 million votes (30-35% of the share) but zero seats out from the infobox just because it got zero seats? That's precisely my point. Polling so high gets you somewhere: it at the very least entitles a party to debates, news coverage... and well, it would still be 10 million votes lol. I mean, you are basically reassuring me in my position that the "seats-only" criterion, strictly speaking, is useless by itself to address situations where a party gets a sizeable mass of the electorate.
This said, I think we are going around in circles and that we both are unlikely to convince each other of the other's position. Impru20talk 18:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this discussion is going anywhere (@Impru20). I can see two ways to resolve it:
  1. Cambial accepts that they are in a minority within this particular debate and allows the change to take place, or
  2. a proper RfC is opened to encourage wider participation.
A.D.Hope (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this is a contentious issue and that it could potentially affect other UK articles (I'm thinking of 2024), I would say that going for a proper RfC would be the most cautious and sensible solution (specially to avoid a potential edit war, as I have seen from various edits to the article today). Impru20talk 19:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may well affect other UK (and other FPTP) election articles. I think a central RfC is appropriate. Were we to decide that national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions, for this specific article the greens, with a comparable vote share to LD and SNP, ought also to appear. Based on seat numbers we ought also to be including DUP here. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think the proposal is less ambitious than that (or at least the one I defend): not to let national vote share ought to determine infobox placement in FPTP jurisdictions (which would affect all elections if applied like that); rather than national vote share complements the current seat count system, i.e. that a party getting above X threshold of popular vote share should be considered as "major" and, thus, entitled to appear in the infobox alongside the other major parties (this would only affect 2015 and 2024 on current election trends I think, as I can't think of any other election where a party gaining so many votes is so penalized by the electoral system in seat count). Basically what happens with 1935 Prince Edward Island general election, 1987 New Brunswick general election, 2021 Canadian federal election... Impru20talk 19:43, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first example to which you link is a "two-horse race" (according to the infobox) so isn't really comparable to this nor to the other two. The 2021 example is similar to the six-party layout proposed here and discussed here and in various other threads. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly comparable to your argument: if seats are the only thing that should matter, why are we showing parties with zero seats in the infobox there? I'll tell you why: because the specific circumstances of those elections were taken into account, so exceptions to your strict view of the seat-count criterion do exist and are applied when required. Criteria should serve the article, not vice versa.
You are aware that the discussions you are citing date back to 2014 and 2016, right? It's been ten and eight years since then. 2021 came later. Consensus and reality back then does not necessarily mean that we are at the same place nowadays:
consensus can change, specially in light of new developments. Impru20talk 08:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Support – receiving 12.6% of the vote makes UKIP notable in this election, regardless of how many seats the party actually won. A.D.Hope (talk) 19:00, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1229897861"