Jump to content

Talk:List of parties contesting the 2005 United Kingdom general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Position of RESPECT

[edit]

It's clear that Respect should be part of "current representation at Westminster". They are listed as such on the official parliament website. This is the authority on what parties are in Parliament! Talrias (t | e | c) 12:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought that George Galloway would be the authority on which party he represented. In the last Parliament, he was clear that he was "Independent Labour". Though he was also a member of RESPECT he did not regard as himself as a RESPECT MP as he had not been elected under that label. Warofdreams 10:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Parliament.uk states that he represents Respect at westminster. Is there a source for the quote about "independent Labour"? -- 62.255.241.252 10:06, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)User:Joolz (not logged in)
Gslloway actually seems to have avoided giving quotes about which party he represents. There are numerous references to him as independent Labour - including some from the RESPECT site - and many more just saying "independent". The only quote relevant to his party affiliation I can find is http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,9061,1069446,00.html where he said he was "prepared" to stand as an independent. He hasn't ever said that he is a RESPECT MP, although RESPECT now claim he is. To my mind, it would seem fairer and more simple to say that he is variously described as "Independent" or "RESPECT" and is standing for RESPECT. Warofdreams 11:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The problem could be avoided altogether by renaming the section "Parties that won seats in the 2001 election", which is the best guide to whether they will win seats this time out, which is, after all, why the parties are grouped into separate sections in the first place. sjorford →•← 14:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Respect website does claim Galloway as a Respect MP (see here). If you look in back issues of the WIB on www.parliament.uk Galloway was Independent Labour; he seems not to have noticed this and so continued to be given as Independent Labour after Respect was formed, but to all intents and purposes he was a Respect MP from January 2004. Dbiv 13:27, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other parties from Electoral Commission website

[edit]

The Electoral Commission list all parties which have informed them of their intention to stand. It does not yet appear to be finalised, but these parties seem to be absent from our list:

Sorting

[edit]

I've put every party which looks vauguely English into the appropriate section (generaly I just took any thing with 'England' in the name, and things with an English sounding placename). Can someone check up that I haven't made any stupid mistakes here please :)

Also, can anyone suggest an easy way of making the list a little more comprehensible, as it seems a little silly in some ways to list the Liberal Party in the same section as (for example) the Publican Party when one came second in a seat at the last election, and I've never even heard of the other. Ideally any method would be easy to check and verify, I was thinking if a party has seats on a local council, but that strikes me as being a hell of a lot of work. --Neo 11:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

  • I think that would be a lot of work. I'll try to do it by the number of seats in which they are standing. Warofdreams 15:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Region/nation

[edit]

Consistency is important. The article is led by the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems under the heading "Nationwide parties" and this is confusing when earlier it refers to listing parties by nation. I'd be happy if nation was used in the opening section if this heading was changed, but as it was (before my edit) is confusing. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've substituted a more accurate section title, but it's not very snappy - have you got any better ideas? Warofdreams 18:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think the best course is to change it back to "nation" and change the title to use "countrywide". In the UK's case, nation is distinct from countrywide - I think a note explaining this might be appropriate. What do you think of this? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That might work - I think the problem is that with the exception of the Conservatives and the Rainbow Dream Ticket group, none of the groups are standing in Northern Ireland, so they're not really UK-wide. Warofdreams 09:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about just getting rid of the top section entirely then and put each party in the appropriate heading for the different nations of the UK (obviously they would have to be repeated). The number of seats can then be the number of seats they are entering for that area. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

England and Wales

[edit]

Why are these two regions combined? After all, some parties stand in Wales only and England only. They should be split out. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:00, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea behind it is as the most parties are common to England and Wales - i.e. do not have seperate parties as happens with Scotland, (the ones I know for certain are Scottish Green Party and Green Party of England and Wales, but I think most parties do it this way) and so its easier to list them together, however it may just be an artefact of the source data. --Neo 15:09, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Nationalist / Republicans in N. Ireland

[edit]

On the List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005 page one lists N. Irish parties stating that some are republican, some nationalist, and some unionist. I went to the page today and considered that someone visiting the page might not be familiar with these terms within the context, so I endevoured to link them to some relevant pages.

We have an excellent Unionist (Ireland) page, but would someone familiar with the history and politics of the region write a similar page on the nationalist/repulicans, or else tell me of a nice relevant page to which I should link these headings? Many Thanks. --Neo 14:05, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of parties contesting the United Kingdom general election, 2005. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_parties_contesting_the_2005_United_Kingdom_general_election&oldid=1200202324"