Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

KIRG

Hello,

I was going through the results and I was wondering why there is no reference to the Kingston Independent Residents Group. Their candidate got 1,177 votes, and they went by 'Kingston Independent Residents - Justice for Subpostmasters' on the SOPN. Have they just been bundled in with independents in the tallies? This would seem to contradict what has happened with the independent network. Any information would be appreciated.

Regards Quinby (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

The results infobox had some issues earlier that we fixed, and it looks like the BBC source being used ends at parties receiving 1,967 votes, so I believe that's likely a mistake, since the KIRG is a registered political party. I'm not sure how to proceed, because right now a good part of the infobox is unsourced, which would pose an issue. AnOpenBook (talk) 02:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@AnOpenBook that does seem like a frustrating situation. I recently went over all constituencies and found no other issues other than KIRG and that the parties below 500 votes were significantly less than the current table says. I did not look at independents however. Quinby (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

All information is in the "House of commons official document on the election results" Seen here: https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-10009/CBP-10009.pdf which comes from this link. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-10009/

Those documents include the Kingston Independent Residents Group, so I'm not sure if that's simply an error or if another source is being used which doesn't mention them. Also, this isn't cited on the results infobox, so it really should be if it is the source. Thank you for sharing it, though! AnOpenBook (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who added a lot of the smaller parties to the infobox - I simply checked which constituencies they were standing in and tallied the votes. This source would be far better though to update the numbers with. It's possible I simply missed the KIRG. I believe the parties with less than 500 section may have simply taken off the total votes for listed parties from the total vote count - but I think this was done before I added most of the smaller parties, which could explain the discrepancy. Eastwood Park and strabane (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Infobox House of Commons composition diagram

I notice that File:House of Commons (2024 election).svg displays the SDLP as being on the opposition benches; in reality whilst they're not part of the government, the SDLP MPs sit on the government benches. @Ravenpuff: as you created that diagram- would there be any objection to moving the SDLP to the government bench in the diagram? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 18:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chessrat: The SDLP is still considered an opposition party irrespective of where they choose to sit in the chamber, so I think changing the diagram would make it a bit disingenuous. The point of the diagram isn't really to mimic the actual seating arrangement of the House of Commons (there isn't enough room in the chamber for all 650 MPs anyway), but to illustrate the scale of the government's majority. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 20:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The diagram is specifically designed to mimic the seating arrangement of the House of Commons though? The Speaker at the head of the room, the government benches on his right and Opposition benches on his left. There are many possible graph styles for charting the scale of the majority; the fact that this one is arranged in the style of the House of Commons seating layout implies (incorrectly) that the SDLP MPs sit on the Opposition benches. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 23:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, yes, there is some deliberate structure to the diagram, which does allude to the conventional Commons seating arrangement. But I'd argue that your suggested change would imply (incorrectly) that the SDLP MPs form part of HM Government, where in fact they are an opposition party (regardless of how close they are to Labour politically). The best way to interpret the diagram is to consider one side to be the governing party and the other side to be all the opposition parties, which is the clearest way of illustrating the parliamentary majority. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I might also add that this diagram was taken directly from the (regularly updated) diagram used in the infobox of House of Commons of the United Kingdom. The context there makes clear why the diagram is laid out as it is. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I can see the argument for that- I suppose the issue is that the case of a sister party which sits on the government benches but which is not part of the government is quite unique, so any layout has potential to be misleading to some readers. My inclination is that for a diagram in the style of the Commons chamber actual seating arrangements should be followed regardless, but that perhaps a note could be useful explaining the SDLP situation. Would be interesting to hear other editors' thoughts too. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 01:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

"2025 UK general election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2025 UK general election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 9 § 2025 UK general election until a consensus is reached. Blethering Scot 22:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox for next UK general election

Our RfC on the infobox for this article has yet to be closed and the question remains contentious. However, there is now also a proposal at Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Use_of_TILE_rather_than_TIE on changing the type of infobox and what parties to show there. Editors might like to input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Replace 'Proportionality concerns' section with Gallagher Index reference

I propose the removal of the "Proportionality concerns" section in its current form and the inclusion of a more detailed reference to the Gallagher index, as has been standard practice for previous UK general election articles.

While the section currently provides commentary on disproportionality, it overlaps with the objective analysis provided by the Gallagher index. The index offers an academically recognized and neutral measure of electoral disproportionality, which has consistently been used in past election articles.

In light of the score of 23.67 from the Gallagher index—the highest in modern UK history—this figure alone captures the extent of disproportionality in the 2024 election without the need for subjective narratives or opinions. For example, commentary such as Fraser Nelson's "Potemkin landslide" and similar subjective statements are less suitable for an encyclopedic entry focused on neutrality.

I also suggest that a separate article could be created to chronicle historical Gallagher index scores for UK elections. This would allow for an ongoing, objective reference point, and the current discourse around proportional voting could be better addressed in that context.

In summary, I recommend:

• Removing subjective narratives and detailed party-specific breakdowns, as the Gallagher index covers disproportionality comprehensively.
• Retaining and expanding the Gallagher index reference to offer a clearer, objective analysis of the election results.
• This approach would align the article with Wikipedia's goal of using objective, standardized measures and provide a more neutral and structured account of the election's disproportionality.

This felt like a large edit, so wanted to ensure it was discussed here first.

Thoughts? Telephone man123 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We should reflect what reliable sources say. There have been more reliable sources than usual commenting on the disproportionality of this election, so we should reflect that. Most of these don't use the Gallagher index, so while it's useful to include the Gallagher index, I think it would be inappropriate for us to base our coverage around it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary for this election should go higher than the results of the last election?

Trying to find the results for parties other than Labour Tory and Libdem means getting past several bits of data, including lists for the previous parliament. It's nice that proportional representation is mentioned in the article, but the article itself does not do a great job at proportionally representing the votes cast. Markshinshu (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate section started by sockpuppet went nowhere The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

adding parties to infobox

can we add reform to the infobox considering they got more votes than the libdems and the third most voted party? also, snp is notable and could also be added considering they were on the infobox in 2019 too Shooboo23 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

No. We've been over this on this page many times now. It would be good to let the current consensus stand for a decent length of time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As GenevieveDEon says, this has been discussed at length. The current selection is the result. Elections are about winning seats, so we focus on seat winners, not who got the most votes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

just trying to not draw attention to how reform is on the rise arent you -> Ideological bias on Wikipedia Shooboo23 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

just trying to pick a fight arent you -> WP:NOTHERE Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

so trying to improve the infobox which most people see first by including a party with the 3rd-highest number of votes means that im not here to build an encyclopedia? Shooboo23 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

I voted for the larger box option during the RfC. But we have had that discussion, and it had an outcome, that we are abiding by. Please stop trying to relitigate something that already wasted a load of our time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shooboo23, I suggest you read WP:AGF. We try to assume other editors are acting in good faith and not throw around accusations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

See long-winded RfC on this here as to why they are not included. CNC (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding other mainstream parties to info box.

The snp and Sinn Fein hae appeared in previous election info boxes, and reform is much more mainstream and received over 4million votes, which was more than the Lib Dem’s. Please end Wikipedia’s anti nationalist bias, I Donnae even agree with farage or many of his Americanophile views. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll want to review the extensive (!) previous discussions on this topic first, on this page and this page. If you finish that without dying of boredom and still want to discuss it, the floor is open. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Reform hae more votes than the Lib Dem’s. ToadGuy101 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Proof? ToadGuy101 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I find no consensus. Just because 3 people agree doesnae mean it’s a universal consensus ToadGuy101 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly, there is no consensus, thus no change Pikachubob3 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That isnae how Wikipedia works. If there is nae consensus then users can make changes then other users add more info atop said change. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Pikachubob3 is correct. It is how Wikipedia works. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. As it stands, it is difficult for readers to understand where all the missing votes went. The three parties listed only account for 69.6% of the popular vote - where did the other 30.4% evaporate too? If we say, well, it's only seat-count that matters, then why do we clutter the infobox with the popular vote, its percentage, and its swing (for only 69.6% of it) at all? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I also think it's very odd to exclude Reform from the infobox and seems out of step with all other UK election infoboxes. Looking at recent infoboxes there are parties with similar numbers of seats included, and ditto going back to the 1950s when the Liberal vote collapsed and they had single-digit seats. We even include Sinn Fein in the 2017 infobox despite the party not even actually occupying its seats. I would be in favour of reopening a discussion. I T B F 📢 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd agree with adding Reform and SNP. John (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) On reflection, we don't need this. The infobox is a clear and brief summary, and is not the place to discuss the alsorans. I'd support any party getting 10 or more MPs being represented here, but neither SNP nor Reform met that this time. There should be mention in the article about the vagaries of "first past the post" and the large numbers of votes for Reform getting them a mere 5 seats, if it can be reliably sourced, but not in the infobox. Keep it simple. John (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, because that is not what determines the election. As above, there is space to comment on quirks like this in the article, but it is not in my opinion suitable for the infobox. John (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's currently a 30% hole in the popular vote in the infobox and with no explanation there for readers, so, as I said above in my pre-emption of this response, what then is the point in cluttering the box with it at all, especially as it is not what determines the election result? We would be better to remove it rather than confuse readers by only giving 70% of the story. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I take your point. I think I am neutral on that idea. John (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just as John says, it's not a determinant in the election. The purpose of the election is to determine the legislature. Seats are the only factor that affect that outcome. There's no anomaly: the only infobox design in which the national vote share would nearly add up to 100% would be Option E from the RfC. As per the closer, The only real loser seems to have been option E, gaining as it did almost zero support. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I said first. So let's get rid of it as all it does is create confusion and disruption. What is the point of only including part of the significant information on the popular vote? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox and do not get a consensus for it does not mean that another unrelated element of the infobox (the popular vote in this case) "creates confusion and disruption". It does not: parties are ordered by seats in the infobox. That does not make popular vote irrelevant, it's just not the criteria used for ordering parties in the infobox. Reform got 5 seats, 14 times less seats than the LDs and less seats that even SF; the popular vote's presence in the infobox does not have the fault of it. Impru20^talk 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Impru20, where did you derive The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox from? All I want is for the infobox to be encyclopaedic. Read the thread. If it's not desirable (for some historic reason?) to add enough parties to make the popular vote details useful, then I cannot see why the incomplete information is included at all. As I have said, the popular vote stands for nothing in UK General Elections, and continually causes confusion and conflict (as seen in the history of these articles and their talk pages). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties? This is what you said in an earlier comment. It is not an anomaly. In fact, it makes little sense, because we could say the same for the seat rows. Some people will find confusing that a party with 5 seats is shown ahead of a party with 72 seats; others will resort to the popular vote instead. Others will argue than then the solution will be to show all parties, but then there will be the people who argue than showing 1 seat-parties in the infobox will clutter it beyond necessity as infoboxes are meant to summarize, not supplant, the article's contents. And so on. You will end up happily replicating the same discussion that ended up in the current consensus version being in place: it's impossible for all people to be happy and satisfied with one version, but we can have the version that gets the most approval or, at the very least, the least disapproval. Removing the popular vote because you cannot not get your prefered choice through helps no one: you see it as "causing confusion and conflict"; many others don't. Impru20^talk 21:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If all we had were the seat rows, it would be clear. They are in the order of winner, runner-up, third, and the unseen rest with fewer seats are the 'also rans'. However, when the popular vote stats are included, but we don't include the percentages for all parties in the range between the highest and the third-place party, it gives the false-impression that they are also the top-three percentages - and this is misleading and contentious because it does not reflect the true story. And that it what I think needs correcting by either including the missing inbetweenies or not including the popular vote at all. I cannot see what is unreasonable or controversial about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but I don't agree that it gives a false impression. Infoboxes are necessarily simple, and I think this is the least bad solution, the status quo. John (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If anything there should be a standard threshold to determine representation in the election infobox. I.e. votes divided by total number of seats multiplied by seats won. Or just use common sense. ToadGuy101 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  We have to be careful about creating rules like that as they night violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and even WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

• This has been a long-running discussion! (I proposed 'option G', which I still like). However, I think we have to consider it settled (with reservations) - until we have the results of the next GE ... when we might see the rise of other parties the start of a historical trend: someone would then amend this infobox perhaps. Roy Bateman (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Reform sorted third?

Why are the Full results auto sorted so that Reform UK appears by default in third place? Has a Reform UK supporter been at work trying to aggrandise their party? Romomusicfan (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Have copied this to the talk page for the template.Romomusicfan (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

No. The full results table is, per precedent, sorted by total votes. Reform comes third on this metric. CR (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

See also 1951 United Kingdom general election. The Conservatives won with a majority of 15 but Labour won the popular vote so are listed top on there.2.24.70.145 (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Time to change the infobox? (Yes, I know.)

Proposed infobox

2024 United Kingdom general election

4 July 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
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 9,708,716 6,828,925 3,519,143 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% 12.2% Swing 1.6pp 19.9pp 0.6 pp   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader John Swinney Nigel Farage Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay Party SNP Reform Green Leader since 6 May 2024 3 June 2024 1 October 2021 Leader's seat Did not stand Clacton Bristol Central and Waveney Valley Last election 48 seats, 3.9% No seats, 2.0% 1 seat, 2.6% Seats won 9 5 4 Seat change 39 5 3 Popular vote 724,758 4,117,620 1,944,501 Percentage 2.5% 14.3% 6.4% Swing 1.3pp 12.3pp 3.8pp
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

Increasingly, I'm of the opinion that we ought to modify the infobox to include the SNP, Reform and the Greens (as per the above). I don't think we can continue to pretend Reform and the Greens weren't major players in the election nationwide and the SNP a major player in Scotland - what would you guys think of starting up an RfC with more specific questions than last time? (something along the lines of 1. should the infobox be changed and 2-4. should each of the SNP, Reform and the Greens be included) CR (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the question should be based on the principle for determining inclusion, not cherry-picked list of parties. As it happens, your proposal above is the same as the statistical outliers for national vote share (the lowest, SNP, has well over three times the national vote share of the party below it). I would probably support that as the least bad approach. Other proposals might be based on mainstream news sources’ results graphics. We should avoid “vote to include the parties you like”. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, true, that's an issue with the individual party approach. Proposing as a simple yes/no on the proposed infobox might not be the worst idea? CR (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. We should maybe get a consensus for that question so we don't get endless additional options added after the start that torpedo the RfC. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. CR (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the proposed infobox makes sense in that it's the six highest by national vote share, follows the use of WP:RS, and is also the six highest by seat total excluding Northern Ireland (and the elections in Northern Ireland are often treated as separate so I don't think it's unreasonable to exclude them) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm in support of this change to the infobox, the SNP's decline and reform's rise feel significant enough to include on the infobox, with the Greens on there to make things nice and even. TheFellaVB (talk) 00:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Some important context is that every general election since from 1950 to 2010 uses the 1x3 format for a very simple reason: the gap between the third party and any other parties is just so large.

The 2015 election uses a 2x2 because of the SNP's large number of seats (and the fact that the lib dems needed to be included? unsure why they are there), and 2017 uses a 3x2 because of the hung parliament increasing the importance of the DUP. 2019 also uses a 2x2 because there are 2 main parties and 2 fairly large parties (including the SNP).

Going back to using a 1x3 makes the most sense to me. The SNP have 9 seats, the lib dems have 8 times that number DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I am in support of implementing this infobox as it is shown here. The SNP, Reform, and the Green Party were major movers in terms of seat count in this election considering their statuses as minor parties. Independents may also be eligible for inclusion given their greater successes than past elections but I don't think that could achieve consensus seeing as the infobox would be too large with a portion of the infobox possibly going unused in that case. I would like any solution to stop this topic from becoming a perennial discussion. Qwerty123M (talk) 03:11, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

This proposal is entirely unacceptable. Election infoboxes show parties in order of how well they did. This infobox omits several parties that won more seats for parties that won fewer seats. That is misleading. A naïve reader coming to the page will look at that and get the wrong ideas of what happened in the election. The omitted parties are from Northern Ireland, but there is nothing about the UK constitution that treats MPs elected from Northern Ireland as different from any other MPs. We can't just impose a GB-centric perspective on the infobox. Editors picking parties for inclusion because they feel significant is WP:OR. We follow the election results, not what editors think is interesting. Bondegezou (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the current infobox (1x3). Personally, I think the only "fair" way to include parties considering these results is to have either the 3 important parties or the 10 parties that won more than 1 seat. As the infobox is designed and made for a summary-style view, a sort of quick glance for readers to get the headlines, parties that won less than 10 seats shouldn't be included. Yeoutie (talk) 12:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Counterproposal

What's with such overloading of the infobox with far more data than anyone is really going to pay attention to unless they are willing to read the whole article (and even then it contains data that is not even in the article)

It's not a presidential election, so the parties, rather than the leaders, are what is relevant. Given that, the date of election as leader and their constituency are also irrelevant.

This article is about the 2024 election, so let's cut the bloat about the previous one. If people really want to know what the previous results were, they can do the calculation.

Thus:

2024 United Kingdom general election

4 July 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Seats won 411 121 72 Seat change 211 251 64 Popular vote 9,708,716 6,828,925 3,519,143 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% 12.2% Swing 1.6pp 19.9pp 0.6 pp   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader John Swinney Nigel Farage Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay Party SNP Reform Green Seats won 9 5 4 Seat change 39 5 3 Popular vote 724,758 4,117,620 1,944,501 Percentage 2.5% 14.3% 6.4% Swing 1.3pp 12.3pp 3.8pp

2024 United Kingdom general election

4 July 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Seats won 411 121 72 Seat change 211 251 64 Popular vote 9,708,716 6,828,925 3,519,143 Percentage 33.7% 23.7% 12.2% Swing 1.6pp 19.9pp 0.6 pp   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader John Swinney Mary Lou McDonald Nigel Farage Party SNP Sinn Féin Reform Seats won 9 7 5 Seat change 39 5 Popular vote 724,758 210,891 4,117,620 Percentage 2.5% 0.7% 14.3% Swing 1.3pp 12.3pp   Seventh party Eighth party Ninth party   Leader Gavin Robinson Carla Denyer and Adrian Ramsay Rhun ap Iorwerth Party DUP Green Plaid Cymru Seats won 5 4 4 Seat change 3 3 Popular vote 172,058 1,944,501 194,811 Percentage 0.6% 6.4% 0.7% Swing 0.2pp 3.8pp 0.2pp

Someone more expert than I could resize logos and remove the coloured bar beneath them. My preference would be that the party name precedes the leader's.

I'm sort of indifferent as to whether the maps are part of the infobox or not, but if it is in, I would prefer the hexagonal, equal area approach, as it gives a more accurate impression of seats won [Unsigned message by User:Kevin McE] (Apologies for unsigned message: was 22:49 (UTC+0) on 13 Feb.)

The use of party logos looks horrendous and they are irrelevant. There's more of an argument for removing the rest of the content to save space. But then again if you slim it down as much as that you might as well just include nine parties. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 04:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that: as to nine parties, I think in an election for the United Kingdom it is inappropriate to exclude any constituent nation.

I do not agree that the logos look horrendous: they represent the parties as a whole, not the individual at the head of the faction that had the upper hand at that time, which exacerbates perception of politics as the cult of the individual. I don't have the knowledge (or right now time to acquire the knowledge) to size the logos more appropriately, and my hasty example has been undermined by removal by a bot of some of them: please judge the proposal by what it could be in more expert configuration than I have achieved. If resizing them is not practical, then I would indeed agree with simply the colour bar. I am confident that recognition figures for the pale yellow or bright green colours are higher than for the faces of Swinney, Denyer or Ramsay.

But if any face is relevant after an election, it is only one face (the resulting PM), therefore the party data boxes are not the appropriate place for such a photo. It makes no difference to anyone outside Richmond and Nothallerton who the representative for that area is; the number of people whose decision to vote Green was influenced by the date on which that party's co-leaders were elected is unlikely to amount to more than a dozen; a format that obliges us to put up pictures of individuals who were not even candidates is deeply flawed. 98.6% of the population had no opportunity to vote for any of those people even had they wanted to. Kevin McE (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, the pictures are very inconsistently sized, so they force other sections of the infobox for other parties to be smaller. This proposal just appears too strange to me. Most other worldwide elections have images of the party leaders in the infobox, and that is a sensible way to go because by convention in the Westminster system the party with the most seats usually forms government; the party leader may also shape the perception of the party as a whole, thereby increasing or decreasing that party's popularity in the national electorate. Qwerty123M (talk) 02:55, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Please have the courtesy of reading the proposal before rejecting it: "Someone more expert than I could resize logos and remove the coloured bar beneath them." I'm really at a loss to your logic: the party with most seats usually forms the government, therefore it is relevant to be able to see the faces of several people who were never going to get anywhere near to forming a government? Are you arguing for the retention of party leaders' seats and dates of becoming leader? If so, what is the reasoning behind that? Kevin McE (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Even considering that all of these party logos could be the same size, they each have different dimensions and important elements so as you make them smaller the contents may become less legible in an infobox format.

It is indeed relevant to show the leaders of the non-governing parties because as I said those parties' leaders can have great influence on their election results. I think it is important to see that the UK House of Commons is not a completely two-party dominated system. It is important to know firstly who the major movers were, which is where the infobox comes in handy! You say readers may not know the faces of the leaders of the Green Party but readers are coming to this article to learn who those leaders are or were previously. You also said readers may not know who John Swinney is; but many people in Scotland would know who their First Minister is. There are articles for leadership elections of political parties such as for the Labour Party, the Conservatives, the Scottish National Party, and the Green Party so there must be at least some notability in individual candidates' campaigns to warrant an article! It is also interesting to know since when the party has been taken in a certain direction.

Looking at the second infobox, I do like that but it feels much more condensed than the current one and other ones proposed so it looks uncomfortable with that lack of width. While it is true that it does feel unfair to exclude election results from Northern Ireland and Wales, those parties are not what I (as an international observer) perceive to have received the most media attention, and Wales dose;'t completely miss out as the English parties do run candidates in Wales unlike Northern Ireland. Qwerty123M (talk) 11:42, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

And I am not suggesting that their names be removed, so most of what you say is utterly redundant. It is the photos that I propose removing. I had already suggested that I would be perfectly happy with the other counterproposals. This is an encyclopaedia, so it should be expected that people can read: if they want to know when a party leader became such (not that that necessarily indicates a major change in direction), it is easily found. Photographs and other images are useful if they provide immediately recognition: otherwise they are pointless decoration. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

Readers come to the page to see what the election results were. The easy way of showing all parties that won seats is to use a Template:Infobox legislative election. I don't see the need to re-invent the wheel. Bondegezou (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence entirely: they don't come looking to know who the member for Waveney Valley is, nor the history of Plaid Cymru leadership contests, not what happened 5 years earlier, not for a photo parade of those who lost. And that is why I cannot agree with your second sentence. Kevin McE (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't follow your logic. You can see a TILE infobox in use at Next United Kingdom general election. That doesn't show who the member for Waveney Valley is, nor the history of Plaid Cymru leadership contests, nor a photo parade of those who lost. Bondegezou (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Apologies: I don't know templates by their names. I far prefer the conciseness of that to the bloat in the currently used template, but I fear that anything that light on detail would get consensus, which is why I was proposing an abridged version of the current one as a compromise. If party logos can't be made to fit, then I would happily drop them, and go for the version provided here by @Chessrat (but with party name above leader and preferably in bold or otherwise emphasised). Kevin McE (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I’m OK with Chessrat’s proposal. (Minor point: that’s a US(?) use of “swing” and should be changed to “change”.) Bondegezou (talk) 07:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bondegezou: If we do change the infobox we have to bear in mind the result of the RfC- it closed in "no consensus" so there's easily room for consensus to develop, but also there was a lot of opposition to option E (the nine party infobox) so we would have to make sure it's sufficiently slimmed down. I've provided an example of how it could be slimmed down a bit more (also including independents per precedent from local election articles like 2021 Devon County Council election). This being said- I'm actually slowly coming round to the idea of using an expanded version of TILE; TILE more compact so it would be possible to include more information in the same amount of space using that. I'd always opposed TILE before thanks to being too slimmed-down but it occurs to me that it would be possible to include more information whilst retaining the format. I'll also provide an example of that here, albeit before being added to the article it would need a few changes which I can't work out how to do- namely "vote %" should be changed to "votes", and the "Adrian Ramsay" text needs to be below Denyer (to the right of the image). Also might be desirable to change the "leader" column to a "leader and constituency" one in this event, as whilst the constituencies can be removed if absolutely necessary, it's preferable not to do so because in the UK's political system the constituency nature of all MPs including party leaders is important, so it's not really ideal for that information to be missing from the summary box. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:25, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

2024 United Kingdom general election

4 July 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
First party Second party Third party   Leader Keir Starmer Rishi Sunak Ed Davey Party Labour Conservative Liberal Democrats Seats won 411 (211) 121 (251) 72 (64) Popular vote 9,708,716 6,828,925 3,519,143 Percentage 33.7% (1.6) 23.7% (19.9) 12.2% (0.6)   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Leader John Swinney Mary Lou McDonald Party SNP Sinn Féin Independent Seats won 9 (39) 7 () 6 (6) Popular vote 724,758 210,891 564,243 Percentage 2.5% (1.3) 0.7% () 2.0% (1.4)   Seventh party Eighth party Ninth party   Leader Nigel Farage Gavin Robinson Carla Denyer Adrian Ramsay Party Reform DUP Green Seats won 5 (5) 5 (3) 4 (3) Popular vote 4,117,620 172,058 1,944,501 Percentage 14.3% (12.3) 0.6% ( 0.2) 6.4% (3.8)
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

2024 United Kingdom general election

4 July 2024
All 650 seats in the House of Commons 326 seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Turnout	59.9% ( 7.4 pp)
Party Leader Vote % Seats Labour Keir Starmer 9,731,363 33.70% 1.62 pp 411 211 Conservative Rishi Sunak 6,827,112 23.70% 19.93 pp 121 251 Liberal Democrats Ed Davey 3,519,163 12.22% 0.67 pp 72 64 SNP John Swinney 724,758 2.52% 1.36 pp 9 39 Sinn Féin Mary Lou McDonald 210,891 0.73% 0.16 pp 7 Independents 564,243 1.96% 1.32 pp 6 6 Reform UK Nigel Farage 4,117,620 14.29% 12.28 pp 5 5 Democratic Unionist Gavin Robinson 172,058 0.60% 0.16 pp 5 3 Green Carla Denyer Adrian Ramsay 1,841,888 6.39% 2.51 pp 4 3 Plaid Cymru Rhun ap Iorwerth 194,811 0.68% 0.20 pp 4 2 SDLP Colum Eastwood 194,811 0.30% 0.07 pp 2 Alliance Naomi Long 117,191 0.41% 0.01 pp 1 Ulster Unionist Doug Beattie 93,123 0.29% 0.04 pp 1 TUV Jim Allister 48,685 0.17% 0.17 pp 1 1 Speaker Lindsay Hoyle 25,238 0.09% 0.01 pp 1 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

I think we should follow WP:MOS. MOS:INFOBOX is clear that infoboxes should be brief summaries. As such, I don't see the need for vote count (rather than percentage) or leaders' constituencies. (5 of the party leaders don't even sit in the Commons, showing how irrelevant this is!) Such things are details. I don't like the little pictures of party leaders: they violate MOS:ICON. The infobox is not meant to substitute for a complete results table: it's meant to give a quick overview of the most important facts. I think that can be best done with a TILE infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Largely agree, but if there is, for whatever reason, a preference for a TIE format, then it has been demonstrated that these can be done in a far more concise manner than seen in the article at present. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth pages like 2024 Japanese general election have include party leader photos and have 9 parties listed. 76.157.220.195 (talk) 03:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Include the SNP in the infobox

similar to the 2025 German federal election with the FDP, they held loads of seats before the election (FDP: 12.3% of seats. SNP: 7.3% of seats) and then both parties decrease largely in seats, is this not significant to the labour win? similar to Reform being in the infobox which i agree with, as they were a significant issue in this election & to the standard not very informed user they will wonder where the extra 30% of votes went to? The most probable fix is to have the infobox proposed by CR. JMajor14 (talk) 11:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

No. What matters long term is how many seats were won. That's what the infobox should focus on, not on bothering to cover parties that saw large drops in seats. Bondegezou (talk) 12:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What about the consensus reached on the 2025 German federal election page then? JMajor14 (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

In Germany, they use Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) voting, so they could get wildly different results from their vote shares being reflected in the legislature accurately. As there is a proportional voting system over there, people might also vote differently. Qwerty123M (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

With the German article, after much discussion, they decided to go for a maximal infobox, with 8 parties. However, I note that most articles do not cover parties that had big falls in seat numbers. Looking at recent elections in Europe, we have the 2022 Latvian parliamentary election. Here, Harmony won 23/100 seats (23%), both the Conservatives and Union for Latvia won 16/100 seats (16%), and Development/For! won 13/100 seats (13%) in the previous election and all of them dropped to 0 in this election. They are not included in the infobox. In other words, parties representing two thirds of the last parliament all vanished, and this is not shown in the infobox. 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election is similar. List of Marjan Šarec won 13/90 (14%) and Let's Connect Slovenia won 10/90 seats (11%) in the previous election and both dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included. Likewise, with 2024 Icelandic parliamentary election, Left-Green Movement won 8/63 (13%) and Pirate Party won 6/63 seats (10%) in the previous election and both dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included. We see similar, on a smaller scale, with 2024 Lithuanian parliamentary election, October 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election and 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election. Losing big is not usually a reason for inclusion in an infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

pp

The main text uses % for changes in share of votes, whereas the infobox uses pp for the same figures. The article should be consistent, and I prefer %. Technically, % is ambiguous, but everyone knows what it means in this context, and very few readers understand pp. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Resignation as prime minister

I had to change Johnson's resignation as prime minister, to September 2022. Saying he resigned in July & Truss succeeded him in September - made it look like the prime ministership was vacant for two months. Johnson handed in his resignation to Elizabeth II, on Sept 6, 2022. GoodDay (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Is the registered electors and turnout data false?

Hi! Taking the occasion of an annulled edit made by me to the page over the 59.7% turnout, I hereby report the message I’ve sent to @Qwerty123M: regarding the issue. I believe this may be in urgent need of your attention and consideration, without any kind of complaint and only to clarify the situation in order to understand if I’m missing something or if the extraction of infos from the report (or me by not understanding the electoral mechanisms) have been “cooking the numbers” so to speak XD.

First of all, sorry for my broken English. Second of all, getting to the point, I’ve taken all of my info from this source Link to the Final Report - House of Commons which, I believe, it’s the best source available, since it’s official.

Here it says, respectively, that the total number of valid votes for party and non party candidates is equal to 28,809,340 votes (p. 10, at the bottom). Later on, it says that the number of invalid votes (without distinguishing from blank or null ballot) is equal to 116,063 votes (p. 64).

Adding it up, it would be a total of 28,925,403 total votes expressed (wrong on the Wikipedia page, as it shows 28,924,725) over 48,207,507 declared registered electors, as said in the Wikipedia page (which I now doubt as a valid number, since the turnout percentage based on it doesn’t match the report). If we do a basic proportion, indeed, the turnout is:

28,925,403 : 48,207,507 = x : 100 => (28,925,403 x 100) / 48,207,507 => 2,892,540,300 / 48,207,507 = 60.00186444 ≠ 59.7 (by a lot, in decimal terms). That’s also the result the automated template on the Italian Wikipedia, on which I usually work, gave to me, but the report still talks about a rounded 59.7%.

So, in search of answers, I concluded that it’s either the Wiki page which is wrong with electoral data or the report (due to its approximation). I believe, though, that the fault of all of this is most likely the unverified number of registered electors declared, which may be off and in need to be corrected, as it doesn’t have a source supporting this claim and the report, frustratingly only says “about 48,25 milion” (p. 57).

Therefore, having only this partial informations on my hand, I concluded, in good faith, that the turnout data was wrong on the template and fixed accordingly, since even the Wiki page is inconsistent (at the top shows 59.7 and at the bottom of full results 60).

Even the UK Electoral Commission gives other data unheard of, estimating electors, I believe, between 46,114,643 (quite off from ours) for “parliamentary elections” and 48,363,975 (closer, but still off) for “local elections” in the year 2024, even though with the last one:

28,925,403 : 48,363,975 = x : 100 => (28,925,403 x 100) / 48,363,975 => 2,892,540,300 / 48,363,975 = 59.807745331 (visibly less than 60, in decimal terms).

All that said, hoping that my message will help, I’ll send to everyone my best wishes for a good rest of the day. For any other follow-up I invite you to contact me, in English too if you want, on my Italian user page, I’ll get in touch as soon as possibile.

Best regards, Vittoriochichia (talk) 07:57, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

@Vittoriochichia On page 58 of the Commons Library report: "Turnout is measured here as the number of valid votes cast, measured as a percentage of the registered electorate."

The associated spreadsheet for that report has an electorate count for each constituency, which totals 48,224,212 - this matches the rounded figures of 48.25 million and 48.2 million quoted in the report.

So using their method, we get 28,809,340 / 48,224,212 = 0.5974, or 59.74%.

I am not quite sure why they measure turnout this way (rather than including all votes cast), but it seems to be the definition they usually use (it's also the one in this report on 1918-2023 election results). Voter turnout has a mention that "the Electoral Commission distinguishes between "valid vote turnout", which excludes spoilt ballots, and "ballot box turnout", which does not." - presumably the one used here is the valid vote turnout definition.

(The Electoral Commission data is a bit misleading here. It is "in Great Britain", ie only England + Wales + Scotland, not Northern Ireland.) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Gray: Hi! Thanks for this useful explaination. It is indeed weird that the UK Commission measure turnout in this way LOL; thank you for your time and have a good one.

Best regards Vittoriochichia (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

PS: The Wikipedia page in English on Voter turnout also exposes this fact, but doesn’t cite any source (referring to this general one: ), but this isn’t easily accessible.

At this point I believe, logically, that this happens because, for the UK jurisdiction, an invalid vote is considered basically a “waste of paper”, since it doesn’t determine a preferences and therefore can’t be defined as properly voting, unlike in my country (Italy), where blank and null votes are counted at least as made by a person who has voted (ex. Eligendo), or other sort of likeminded countries (ex. Spain, Bulgaria), which consider this votes as valid kind of choice (CIK). Vittoriochichia (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)

References