Talk:List of United Kingdom by-elections (1979–2010)

[Untitled]

Bromley and Chislehurst by-election, another one! Droping like flys arn't they

The Conservative Party haven't won a seat at a by-election (as opposed to succesfully defending one) in over 20 years! I wonder when the last time actually was? Morwen - Talk 16:00, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Merton, Mitcham and Morden in 1982. Though this was the result of the sitting MP moving from the Labour party to the SDP and putting himself up for re-election in his new colours - and splitting the vote. Timrollpickering 08:22, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Colour coding

What do the different coloured bands mean? --Phil | Talk 14:51, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I've added an intro to explain. Warofdreams 15:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Is the terminology of 42nd Parliament, 43rd Parliament, etc. a standard one? Counting back, one would find the 1st Parliament to have sat sometime in the late 18th Century. Of course, Parliament was quite different, let us say, in the time of Edward III, but there has been an historical continuity. Furthermore, Parliaments such as that which sat from 1640 to 1660 have had notable achievements. Perhaps a more suitable reckoning could be devised, unless this one is indeed customary.

The numbering starts with the formation of the United Kingdom - see List of Parliaments of the United Kingdom. The various parliaments of Great Britain, England, Scotland and Ireland are considered separately. sjorford 23:22, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, all right. I hadn't noticed that. Thank you for the clarification.

Belfast West 1943

Was Beattie actually in the Irish Labour Party at this stage? Belfast West (UK Parliament constituency) lists him as independent Labour but I was under the impression he was from the Northern Ireland Labour Party (not the same thing as the British party) at this point and only later moved to the Irish one when in the late 1940s the NILP finally decided it agreed with the Union. Timrollpickering 19:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nothing I can find on the net makes it clear. I got the information from a fairly reliable book but will check the full(er) results at the city library to try to clarify this. Warofdreams 10:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a suspicion that sources which list him as "independent Labour" derive from UK election results and mean "Labour Party (GB) minded but not an official candidate" rather than any clarity as to actual party. Not that that makes it clear just what he was. Timrollpickering 11:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've checked the rather more completed results, which locate him in the NILP. Thanks for pointing out my error! Warofdreams 16:12, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Holding party - at the last election or at the vacancy?

A thought strikes me - several of the entries here list the party affiliation of the outgoing member at the time of their death/resignation/disqualification rather than the winner at the previous election. The standard practice in much modern political reporting is to go with the previous election results (give or take boundary changes) - should we instead adopt this? Timrollpickering 20:56, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A few of these are creeping in now, including some cases where the sitting MP breaks with their party and has a by-election, which disagrees with them. Anyone want to suggest a standard for this? Timrollpickering 18:20, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a preference either way, but you're right that we need a standard. Do you have a suggestion? Warofdreams talk 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's room to fit another set of notes onto the table, especially if we had the cause as well, but maybe treat the holding party as the one who won the last election for the seat (for instance Perth & Kinross, 1938, would be treated as a hold, despite the sitting MP losing) and have a footnote stating where the MP switched party or resigned the whip in the interim, plus things like whether or not they sought re-election.

We also have the problem of the Coalition in 1918-1922 and also the National Government in the 1930s. It wasn't always clear whether or not an individual MP was supporting the govt and there were times when the local party selected a new candidate at odds with the outgoing member - for example Newport in 1922 where the Lloyd George Coalition was seemingly on electoral trial but no candidate stood for it! Timrollpickering 15:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

RodCrosby 00:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC) IIRC, the standard adopted by David Butler et al is as follows:

(i) For by-elections: in assigning gains/losses, ignore floor-crossing (and by implication (see below) intervening by-elections) since the last General Election. Where the previous has occurred identify such changes in brackets if there is a change of winning party.

(ii) For General Elections: ignore floor-crossing and intervening by-elections since the last General Election.

(iii) Notional Boundary Changes overide both of the above.

e.g.

BE Mitcham & Morden 1982, Con gain from Lab(Ind-SDP) (btw was Douglas-Mann SDP or Ind-SDP?)

GE Mitcham & Morden 1983, Con gain from Lab

BE Falkirk W 2000, Lab Hold

BE Leicester S 2004, LibDem gain from Labour

GE Leicester S 2005, Lab hold

BE Brent S 2003, LibDem gain from Labour

GE Brent S 2005, LibDem gain from Labour

BE Lincoln 1973, Dem.Labour gain from Labour(Dem.Labour)

GE Lincoln F1974, Dem.Labour gain from Labour

GE Lincoln O1974, Labour gain from Dem.Labour

GE Gordon 1997, LibDem Gain from Con (notwithstanding notional result probably wildly inaccurate)

I'm not sure if a second by-election in the same Parliament necessarily comes under a "compare to general election" rule. Since most listings are showing the change made by the voters then surely a second by-election producing a different result to the first is a clear gain?

RodCrosby 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) since such examples are invariably sui generis you may see why I said 'by implication'. The only examples I can think of are Bootle 1990 (straightforward) and Mid-Ulster 1955/6 (anything-but straightforward).

Ach, I forgot the dreary steeples of Fermanagh & South Tyrone.

I suppose using the above rubric.

BE F&ST 1981 (i) Anti-H Block gain from Ind. Republican

BE F&ST 1981 (ii) Anti-H Block gain from Ind. Republican (Anti-H Block)

GE F&ST 1983 UU gain from Ind.Republican

I'd disagree - I think the second should be listed as an Anti-H Block hold (with a footnote that they upheld their gain in the first by-election). Similarly Bristol South-East in 1963 is rightly listed as a Labour gain since the 1961 result is listed as a Conservative gain (on petition). There were some seats in the 1935-1945 Parliament with several by-elections in which the parties changed a bit, not least due to the National Government trying to bring coalition partners and non-party men into Parliament.

We also have the problem on multi-member seats. The Combined Scottish Universities had 3 MPs and one of those seats went Conservative (or Scottish Unionist) -> National Labour -> National in the space of two and a half years. Timrollpickering 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

With regards Douglas-Mann, I suspect he may have announced his decision to seek re-election at the same time as joining the SDP, so probably never took the SDP whip in the Commons. Timrollpickering 01:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC) so he never actually 'joined' the SDP?

Not quite. He would have joined the party, but in the Commons he probably had not yet taken the whip (i.e. joined the parliamentary party - there is a distinction) as he was intending to put himself up for election. Timrollpickering 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Preston 1929

The outgoing MP is listed as Alfred Ravenscroft Kennedy but my recollection is that it was William Allen Jowitt, who was given a job in the second Labour government (Attorney General) and opted to put himself up for re-election in his new party colours. Does anyone have a source list for sure? Timrollpickering 14:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• You're quite right, again. My source for the names was http://www.leighrayment.com/commons/Pcommons2.htm and I assumed that the seat had changed MPs at the by-election, but on checking, the date the seat changed hands is indeed the date of the general election. thanks, Warofdreams talk 15:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Causes of by-elections

It might be interesting to make a column for the cause of the by-election, and maybe a total and subtotals by some time period. I'm struck by there being vastly more by-elections in the 1960s and 1970s than today - I suppose politicians are younger these days. Morwen - Talk 10:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

That's one reason, and improved healthcare is another, but by no means the only ones. One of the key reasons is that in the last few decades being an MP has been increasingly seen as a full-time job and so there's less career changing - a good number of the by-elections listed in earlier years were caused by people becoming High Commissioners, judges, leaving to work in the City or abroad and the like. Nowadays there are far fewer in the Commons who are likely to pursue such a course.

Also many MPs would stay to die in the saddle rather than step down at a general election. There were far more heirs to peerages in the Commons in those days and many would still opt to take the title even after the law was changed to allow disclaimages. Some MPs who changed party or fundamentally disagreed with a major political development would put themselves up for re-election to seek a mandate for their personal backing. And of course by-elections were not so frowned upon as they are now, and so many more MPs would retire or go to the Lords mid Parliament rather than hang around until the next general election. Going back into even earlier periods, the requirement that an "appointment to offices of the Crown" automatically negated the MP's current mandate to sit in the Commons generated quite a lot of by-elections, though many were unnoticed unopposed returns.

Nowadays the party machine will do everything and anything to prevent a by-election where they can help it, even putting pressure on old and ill MPs to step down at a general election rather than risk staying in the Commons, privately raising money to help a financially struggling MP so they can stay in the Commons for the moment, doing their damndest to ensure that potential jobs outside Westminster will still be open until the election or (until the hereditaries were thrown out of the Lords) promising them a life peerage upon retirement if they agree to disclaim the seat in the Lords that they've just inherited. The voters frequently seem to indicate that they don't like "unnecessary" by-elections - although this may be hard to quantify, it seems that a defending candidate has a better chance of retaining the seat if it's been vacated in unfortunate circumstances (usually death) than if the previous MP has "deserted" the constituency for a better paid job. There are also very few by-elections with the incumbent MP restanding, not least because it's usually very difficult for them to secure the nomination of their new local party whilst it's very difficult to keep an election for the local member of a representative assembly foused upon a single issue. Timrollpickering 12:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

To start on this

RodCrosby 21:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby Have added as much info on causes since 1945 as possible. Source: "Who's Who of British Members of Parliament - Volume IV 1945-1979 Editors: Stenton & Lees", the standard work.

Sometimes it is unclear whether a peerage and new job/office of profit are precisely contemporaneous, but in such cases for practical purposes it is assumed they are.

e.g. (Stenton/Lees) "Boyd-Carpenter:...sat until Mar.1972 when he was created Baron Boyd-Carpenter (Life Peerage) and appointed Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. ..." (explicit)

"Hill: ...sat until June 1963 when he was created Baron Hill of Luton (Life Peerage). ... Chairman of Independent Television Authority 1963-67. ..." (implicit)

Notice 5 suicides and 3 car-crashes. 3 killed by IRA. Airey Neave would have been 4th but was overtaken by 1979 GE. Tom Swain 1979 another car crash overtaken by GE.

Unsafe job. Still believe Stephen Milligan was murdered though!

3 "wrong-way" by-elections, Opposition->Government: Mitcham & Morden 1982, Brighouse & Spenborough 1960, Sunderland S, 1953.

3 by-election holds unusually lost in subsequent General Election: Darlington 1983, Dundee E 1973, Bolton E 1960.

Having narrowed down the reasons for most by-elections using Stenton/Lees Vol IV, the following are outstanding, with my tentative suggestions(if any); Can you help shed light?

1979 Geoffrey Dodsworth - ill-health? aged 51, still alive 2006 aged 78?

1971 Walter Alldritt - out of his depth?/disillusioned(sic)? aged 52, died late 1990s in his 80s? (very distant family relation by marriage of contributer RodCrosby)

1969 Francis Noel-Baker - ?? aged 49, still alive 2006 aged 86?

1969 Sir William Teeling - ill-health? aged 66, died 1975 aged 72.

1968 Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre - ill-health? aged 55, died 1978 aged 64.

1968 Leslie Hale - ill-health? aged 65, died 1985 aged 82.

1968 William Roots - ill-health? aged 56, died 1971 aged 59.

1967 Frank Cousins - disillusioned with HofC? aged 62, died 1986 aged 82.

1961 James Carmichael - ill-health? aged 67, died 1966 aged 71.

Not wishing to step on Morwen's toes, but do we really need *all* causes of death. My idea of including car-crash, suicide, IRA, etc. was to identify the more unusual ones which could conceivably have had a political impact on the ensuing by-election, one way or another. I think listing all just misses the point. Less is more, surely? RodCrosby Can we keep it to commonly-understood "un-natural deaths"? BTW, if it's not clear, the ones I added since 1945 are this entire subset. Common-or-garden causes would be best left to the biographies, IMHO.

1997-2001

• dead: Michael Shersby, Gordon McMaster, Derek Fatchett, Roger Stott, Alan Clark, Michael Colvin, Bernie Grant, Clifford Forsythe, Donald Dewar, Audrey Wise
• resigned due to scandal: Piers Merchant
• re-run: Mark Oaten
• resigned for govt job: Alastair Goodlad (ambassador to .au), George Robertson (NATO sec-gen)
• resigned for Welsh Assembly/Scottish Parliament: Cynog Dafis, Dennis Canavan
• resigned for retirement: Betty Boothroyd

2001-2005

• dead: Jamie Cann, Raymond Powell, Paul Daisley, Jim Marshall
• resigned for govt job: Terry Davis (CoE sec-gen), Peter Mandelson (European Commissioner)

2005-

• dead: Patsy Calton, Robin Cook

Some of the incumbents and victors seem to be in the wrong place on the chart. For instance, the Anti-Waste League is listed as incumbent when they were actually the victors in an upset. Homey 03:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, the 1918 Parliament list contains quite a few inaccuracies - I will attempt to fix it ASAP. All the others should be correct. Warofdreams talk 13:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
• The Ealing Southall and Segefield by-elections will take place on 19th July 2007. I tried to add this to the table, but this caused the whole table to 'break down' into a block of text.
• Michael Martin needs a note adding to say he was originally elected as a Labour MP. I've tried to edit, but couldn't get the formatting correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.131.168 (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Completeness

How complete is this listing for some of the earlier Parliaments?

In the 1935-45 Parliament, I can think of a few missing to start with: Lewes (1936) and Bodmin (1940, may have been uncontested, can't recall). New Progressive 08:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• It should be complete back to 1959, before which only seats which changed hands at the by-election are listed. Warofdreams talk 10:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to make it more complete, there is a list of all by-elections (and their results) dating back to 1945 on this website. New Progressive 12:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

If a complete list is desired then it's not difficult to find the information - F. W. S. Craig's 'Chronology of British Parliamentary Byelections' is the book. However I think the article would probably have to be split by timeframe if it included every byelection since 1918. David | Talk 12:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Changes to table

I've made various changes to the table, including using reverse chronological order and experimentally merging the last three Parliaments. Does anyone have any opinions on the the advantages or disadvantages of these? Warofdreams talk 13:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it now looks weired as chronologically one has to go in both directions. Also we've lost the note on the 1918-1922 Parliament about the confusion of the Coalition and this should stay. Timrollpickering 09:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to go through and change the whole article into reverse chronological order, if there are no objections to this. Reversing the order has the advantages that the most recent by-elections are listed first. It should also permit a more natural division of the article should it grow further and need to be split over more than one page. I'm not concerned either way about the note; I was unsure it was needed, but if there is a desire to keep it, that's fine with me. Warofdreams talk 11:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Mid Ulster

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby Serious confusion(well it was confusing, in a way only NI can be!) over the 1955/56 by-elections, not just here but in other sources, mostly having Charles Beattie incorrectly standing in and winning the 1956 by-election. Have corrected the entry. The candidate in 1956 was George Forrest.

Source: "Who's Who of British Members of Parliament - Volume IV 1945-1979 Editors: Stenton & Lees"

On Mitchell... "b. in Cork 1931. A Building Inspector. Served a sentence of 10 years' penal servitude..for taking part in the raid on the depot of the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers on 17 Oct 1954. A Sinn Fein Member. Elected for Mid Ulster in May 1955 but was declared incapable of election on 18 July 1955, when a new writ was moved. Again elected at the by-election on 11 Aug 1955 but a petition to unseat him on the grounds that he was a felon was upheld by the Northern Ireland High Court on 7 Oct 1955 and by the House of Commons on 25 Oct 1955; his opponent was declared elected. Unsuccessfully contested Mid-Ulster again at a by-election in May 1956 and in 1959, 1964 and 1966 * [1955]" (The * means that Mitchell was definitely alive at the time of publication in 1981. The [1955] means Dod 1955 was the source of the bulk of the information.)

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby comments: Wikipedia states that the 1955 general election result was nullified on 18 July 1955 by a 197 to 63 vote of Parliament. Does that mean that his service ended on 18th July 1955, or retrospectively, so in fact he was never elected? If the former, did he technically have a second term from the date of the 1955 by-election until the second nullification on 25 Oct 1955? If the latter, why the second nullification? Very confusing.

On Mitchell's unfortunate successor, Charles Beattie, Stenton/Lees says... "A Farmer and Auctioneer. Member of Omagh Rural District Council. An Ulster Unionist Member. Unsuccessfully contested Mid Ulster at the 1955 General Election and after his opponent had been declared incapable of election, at the by-election in Aug. 1955. Declared elected by the Northern Ireland High Court on 7 Oct 1955, after his opponent had again been declared incapable of election, and took his seat on 25 Oct 1955. On 15 Dec 1955 the House of Commons Select Committee on Elections recommended that his election be declared invalid because he held an office of profit under the Crown as a member of three Northern Ireland National Insurance and National Assistance Tribunals; this recommendation was accepted by the House on 7 Feb 1956. A Bill was passed in Mar. 1956 indemnifying him from all the consequences of sitting and voting while disqualified but it did not validate his election; a new writ was moved on 19 Apr 1956 * [1956]"

RodCrosby 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby comments. Beattie has no year of birth given. He is described as an Ulster Unionist, by implication 'official', although he is often cited in other sources as 'Independent Unionist.' (His successor, George Forrest, was elected in 1956 as 'Independent Unionist' but later became 'official' Ulster Unionist.) David Boothroyd says Beattie did not take his seat and has the date of his service as starting on 7th Oct 1955, apparently the date of the election petition decision. Would it not be retrospective from the date of the by-election? Not sure myself. Stenton/Lees says he took his seat on 25th Oct 1955, coincidentally the day they say Mitchell was declared incapable by the HofC for the second time. An interesting point is that Beattie's 'election' was never validated. Was this man really ever a member of the HofC or just an embarrassing 'accident'? Never 'elected', never validated and ineligible to sit at all, yet apparently took 'his' seat! Undoubtedly the most chimeral person ever associated with the House of Commons...

It's also pretty unclear who gained what from whom...

1955 GE: SF gain from Irish Republican? Vacant Seat?

1955 BE: SF hold? or UU gain from SF ? Neither??

1956 BE: Ind U gain from UU? or Ind U gain from SF? Neither??

Must also hold the record for number of MPs in shortest space of time. 4 in less than 12 months. O'Neill, Mitchell(?), Beattie(?), Forrest.

There's a bit of confusion, in part because SF MPs don't actually take their seats, but if they had done so then I reckon Mitchell would have been able to vote in the Commons in the interim as MP for Mid Ulster. With regards who gained what from whom, I think the best precedents to follow (or if not then these also need changing) are the 1961 Bristol South-East by-election (Labour's Tony Benn tops the poll but the seat is awarded to his Conservative opponent on petition due to Benn being ineligible - we list this as a Conservative gain) and the 1997 Winchester by-election (Mark Oaten's original narrow election is declared void on petition and he wins the by-election by a rather larger result - we list him as the sitting MP and the seat as not being a gain). So to answer your questions:

1955 GE: I'd list this as SF gain from Independent Republican.

1955 BE: Trickier but I'd list SF as the holding party. The Bristol precedent suggests we should declare this to be an UU gain.

1956 BE: ...so this would make the UU the holdng party and an Ind Unionist gain.

And another confusing point - Forrest held his seat in 1959 in official Unionist colours so was this retained or not? Normally when an MP's change of party is "upheld" by the voters this is listed as a gain so I'd suggest this was not retained by the "party" (though there wasn't one!) but add a footnote stating that the person did. Timrollpickering 23:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this would best be explained by a timeline:

May 26, 1955: General election in Mid-Ulster: Mitchell 29,737, Beattie 29,477. Mitchell declared elected. He does not (can not? in Belfast Gaol) take the oath.

July 8: No petition having been presented but the member being apparently disqualified, a resolution of the House of Commons calls for a certificate of his conviction to be presented.

July 18: The certificate having been presented, a resolution of the House of Commons declares the seat vacant and orders the warrant for the electing of a new member.

August 11: Byelection: Mitchell 30,392, Beattie 29,586. Mitchell declared elected. He does not (can not? in Belfast Gaol) take the oath.

August 16: Mid-Ulster Unionist Association announces that it will petition against the return on the grounds that the successful candidate is disqualified as a felon.

August 25: Petition lodged.

October 7: High Court of Northern Ireland allows the election petition and declares the return of Mitchell undue, and that Beattie is duly elected.

October 25: Beattie takes the oath. However, he never makes a maiden speech. He votes in 19 divisions during his Parliamentary career before notice is taken that he may be disqualified. Technically, he is liable to a £500 fine for each.

December 19: Select Committee of the House of Commons reports that Beattie was disqualified by virtue of offices of profit under the crown. (Interestingly there had been many cases after the 1955 general election in which members were found to have such offices, and were given indemnities and kept their seats, but Beattie was distinguished because the issue was so widely canvassed at his byelection)

January 20, 1956: Mid-Ulster Unionist Association decides not to nominate a candidate.

February 7: Resolution of the House accepts the findings of the Select Committee and declares Beattie incapable of election.

February 9: Bill introduced to indemnify Beattie against the fines for voting while disqualified. It passes.

April 19: Edward Heath successfully moves for a writ for the electing of a new member.

April 28: When nominations close, George Forrest is in the field as an Independent Unionist.

May 8: Byelection: Forrest 28,605, Mitchell 24,124, O'Neill 6,421. Forrest declared elected.

May 15: Forrest takes the oath.

What I haven't been able to find is when exactly it was realised Beattie might be disqualified. David | Talk 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Any idea when Forrest became an official Unionist? Did he take the whip immediately upon arrival in the Commons? Timrollpickering 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby 01:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)RodCrosby

Keele says that Mid-Ulster 1959 was an Ind.Unionist hold and 1964 an Ulster Unionist Hold(sic), implying taking the whip between 1959 and 1964.

Wikipedia says a UU hold in 1959(sic) and UU hold in 1964, implying taking the whip between 1956 and 1959. Take your pick!

ElectionsIreland.org lists Forrest as a UU candidate in 1959 but is a little confused on other details. A Google search doesn't reveal much else of specific substance.

In the 1960s Forrest was a prominent pro O'Neill Unionist and reviled by some (in 1967 he was pulled off a July 12th platform and kicked unconscious by Orange Order members) - could it be that his taking the whip in the Commons and local endorsement by the Mid Ulster Unionist Association were significantly separate matters?

(By the way can you not break up other people's comments - it makes it very difficult to read them.) Timrollpickering 16:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Fred Craig, Forrest joined the Unionist group before his first re-election, and was an official candidate at every election after then. The Who's Who of British MPs has him joining the Ulster Unionist Group but does not give a date. The Times, May 11, 1956 (immediately after the election) reports his intention to take the Unionist whip. He was an official Unionist candidate in East Tyrone at the 1958 Stormont election. David | Talk 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And if all this isn't complicated enough, several of the other party identifications for the 1950s are unclear - see Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)#History and Mid Ulster (UK Parliament constituency)#Members of Parliament. The MPs elected in 1950 and 1951 are described on Wikipedia as various Independent Nationalists, Independent Republicans and the Irish Nationalist Party - which, from recollection, in this period was little more than a collection of effectively independents! Does anyone feel brave enough to sort all that out! Timrollpickering 00:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

On the side issue of whether it is a record number of MPs in twelve months, I think it may be, for a single-member constituency. Belfast West came close in 1950/1, but it was several months over, and the first and last MPs were the same person. Warofdreams talk 00:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little sceptical given the poorer state of health care and turnover in some earlier periods, especially when it was easier to change seat and full ministers had to seek re-election. There may be some, especially in the 1885-1886 and c 1910 period that had three elections each delivering a new MP in twelve months. Timrollpickering 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Unionist Party 1912-1965

Just to float an idea before mass changes - the Scottish Unionist Party was a nominally separate entity between 1912 and 1965 - so should we list all Conservatives in Scotland in the period as "Scottish Unionist" and use colour #5555FF rather than #3333CC? We do the same for the Ulster Unionists. Timrollpickering 18:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My view is no, because the Unionist Party was part of the National Union at this time and there was no difference in policy. It's analagous with not having a different colour for the Labour/Co-operatives. The Ulster Unionists are substantially different because they had the Stormont Parliament and a different policy. David | Talk 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

WWI & WW2

RodCrosby As this page becomes more comprehensive and detailed, I'll say in advance (having calculated these figures 20 years ago) that I think it's notable that 23 MPs died on active service during the Second World War, and 22 MPs died on active service during the First World War. Remarkable figures given the average age of MPs at that time (how many were even eligible for national service?), and that 8-10% casualties is considered by modern military commanders as unacceptable. By the way, how many MPs are on active service in Iraq?

• There is a difference in that national service isn't in place in Iraq. You could equally ask how many MPs died in the Second Boer War (I believe the answer is none). Warofdreams talk 11:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby Did I say 'National Service'? I said active service, and I think you will find that a large number were volunteers...

Many MPs signed up even though some were in their 60s. The most remarkable was Hitchin Conservative MP Sir Arnold Wilson, who spent most of the 1930s saying what a reasonable chap Hitler was, but eventually realised he had been duped and rejoined the RAF. He was shot down and killed in 1940. Austin Hopkinson, the Independent MP for Mossley whose article I wrote the other week, rejoined the Navy. One of those killed in the Second World War was Private P.M. Munro of the Palace of Westminster Home Guard. I think there may have been some sitting MPs killed in the South African War in 1900 - there is a list in Fred Craig's Chronology of British Parliamentary byelections. David | Talk 12:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• The Powell & Pressburger film "One of Our Aircraft is Missing (1942)" has a character Sir George Corbett, K.C.I.E., C.M.G., F.R.G.S., D.S.O., M.P., Rear-Gunner of "B for Bertie". Based on Sir Arnold Wilson, who was considered to play the part, before he was posted missing...RodCrosby

I have now checked Craig and no MPs died in South Africa, although three were killed in the Crimea. Now I remember, there is a complete list of MPs who served in the Second World War in Quintin Hogg's book "The Left was never Right", pages 11-13. David | Talk 23:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(Although it doesn't seem to be complete because it doesn't list Hopkinson) David | Talk 01:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Independent victors who hold seats for parties

We need to get a consistent position on this. In addition to Mid Ulster 1956, there were a lot of Independents who took seats during the Second World War in defiance of the truce between the parties and then joined a party (usually Labour) in Parliament, sometimes holding the seat in their new colours. We also have a few cases of MPs being elected by renegade local associations who weren't happy with the official candidate and again becoming full party men by the general election. Plus we have the problem of multiple labels meaning the same thing (e.g. Lipson in Cheltenham 1937 - elected as an Independent Conservative, holding his seat as an National Independent supporting a basically Conservtaive government).

I'm inclined towards the view that everything is a gain unless the seat is held by the same basic label - so the independents are not retaining their seats. But does anyone have a better rule to follow? Timrollpickering 11:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

RodCrosby basically agreed I think. As I said previously, the convention is to compare changes with the winning party-label at the previous GE. Irrespective of candidate changes, floor-crossing and by-elections. Where necessary, clarify the position using notes or brackets.

I would say if the same member is re-elected, that's the key point for whether a byelection change is 'retained'. As for gains, yes, I agree. I would still count Liverpool Scotland in 1929 as a gain although in real terms it was nothing of the sort. David | Talk 21:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

• btw, am I right in thinking Wing Commander Millington, Chelmsford(Common Wealth) is still alive? AFAIK, he and John Profumo, Kettering(Con) are the last of the pre-1945 GE intake.
  • Just noticed it's Millington's 90th birthday tomorrow! Opportunity for someone to provide an entry on him?
  • Yep, he's alive and has just published an interesting-looking autobiography http://writers.fultus.com/millington/book01.html

Time for a split?

128K long at last edit. Growing like topsy. Time to split it up and "fork off"? I would think the best splits would be byelections up to 1918, 1918-1945, and 1945-date. David | Talk 11:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• which follows Stenton/Lees Vols II,III & IV. Makes sense.RodCrosby
  • Yes, please go for it. Only problem could be that the 1945-date article will still be very long. Warofdreams talk 13:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Perhaps another split at 1979. David | Talk 17:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Can I suggest 1950 and 1983 as better divisions? That way the breaks would coincide with boundary reviews (and in the former case, Craig's volume). Also it would be easier for notes on the multi-member seats and the University constituencies if they didn't run five years into the new page. If 1918-1950 is too long we can always create another split with the 1931 election. Timrollpickering 02:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Appointments to ministerial office

Anyone got a good box sized summary and link for by-elections caused by appointment to Ministerial office? Timrollpickering 17:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Appointed as Minister for Administrative Affairs" (insert name of office)? Warofdreams talk 18:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, though I think a link explaining the law of the day would be useful as well. Timrollpickering 21:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As this would affect a great deal of by-elections were we to have complete lists, perhaps the law should be explained in the introduction? Warofdreams talk 22:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Edinburgh East, some record?

Just noticed that the electors of Edinburgh East endured 7 parliamentary elections in 10 years. 1945(ge), 1945(be), 1947(be), 1950(ge), 1951(ge), 1954(be), 1955(ge). RodCrosby

Ormskirk another - 5 in 5 years. 1950(ge), 1951(be), 1951(ge), 1953(be), 1955(ge)

Try Middlesex - five in two years, six in four: 1766 (be), Mar 1768 (ge), Dec 1768 (be), Feb 1769 (be), Mar 1769 (be), Apr 1769 (be).

The voters of North Down had similarly frequent votes: 1921 (be), Feb 1922 (be), Apr 1922 (be). They then became part of Down, which voted in 1922 (ge), 1923 (ge), 1924 (ge). Warofdreams talk 00:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Another party winning at the general election

Putting in footnotes for all cases where a different party from the one defending/holding/gaining the seat at the next general election is getting chaotic - look especially at List of UK by-elections (1931 - 1950). How about expanding the infomation in the "Retained?" box to include things like "No - won by Labour" for all cases where another party wins?

Also for both completeness and tidyness I'd include a "Yes" in all cases when the same party defends, holds and retains the seat - otherwise no box appears at all. Timrollpickering 00:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Colours

Shouldn't the colours that are used to signify a gain be standardised? Currently, we've got different schemes for Westminster, Holyrood and Cardiff, as regards LibDem and SNP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, in fact I came to this discussion page to ask why the LibDems are given yellow while the SNP are given a light orange. Though both parties use yellow as their primary colour, LibDems tend to campaign with a light orange while the SNP always use yellow. I think it would be easier understood at glance to invert the colours on this page so that SNP are given yellow and LibDems are given the light orange colour. --Delta-NC (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Had some spare time so I messed about with a few colour ideas and have updated them to what I think is a fair compromise, seem to offer in my view a better 'first glance' distinction between the Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party. --Delta-NC (talk) 03:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy with the change in colours, but please don't forget to do the other articles in the sequence, and to change the information at the top of each article on what the colours represent. Warofdreams talk 08:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Full dates

I'd like to include the full date of each by-election in the tables. As they go back, there are more and more each year. However, I don't want to increase the width of the table any further, so I'd like to remove the "Retained" column, turn the information in it into notes, and make the notes more prominent by placing the reference numbers in the "By-election" column, after the name of the constituency. Does anyone object to this proposal? Warofdreams talk 03:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done the two most recent Parliaments, as an example. Warofdreams talk 01:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

David Marshall resigned due to heath?

This page states that David Marshall resigned due to "Ill Heath", however it was also widely reported that he had been abusing public finances by use of his expenses. The article about him on Wikipedia states this and has references. Should this therefore not also be mentioned? --Delta-NC (talk) 20:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion for re-organisation

I'd like to suggest a new article be created at UK Parliamentary by-elections. This could include general information about by-elections, such as is currently in the Resignations sub-section of this article, perhaps some of what's in United Kingdom by-election records and material not currently covered (conventions around who moves the writ and Speaker's Conferences suggesting changes). There would then also be clear links to this article and United Kingdom by-election records. What say you all? Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Following the complete lack of comment here(!), I have been bold and created the article. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Warofdreams talk 16:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What is a gain and what is not a gain

A byelection gain is a rare thing. It is a signal mark of political and electoral change, and is treated as such by the public, the political parties and the media. Some byelection gains are remembered for decades after they happen. So we highlight gains in the table to enable readers to pick them out.

Where a Speaker of the House of Commons retires, and the party they used to belong to takes back the seat, this is not in any meaningful sense a 'gain'. The Speaker is not a different party; he or she is no party. F. W. S. Craig always used to count the Speaker as remaining for electoral purposes a member of the party from which they had originally come. It is quite wrong to highlight occasions on which a byelection in the Speaker's seat has been won by ordinary candidate of the same party the Speaker used to belong to. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Sam, you and I have been editing Wikipedia pages for some time, and I have always found your contributions to be exceptionally helpful. On this issue, however, I think our difference in opinion is a very unfortunate case indeed. I notice that, if I take the two by-elections on this page, West Bromwich and Glasgow, the corresponding articles call the results Labour Gains, and these articles have not been changed in this regard for some time. I take the point that gains are rare. I agree with you that Speakers are not ordinary candidates and their elections are not treated in ordinary ways. But the fundamental point is accuracy. The candidate who won West Bromwich West in 1997 was "Speaker Seeking Re-election". The winner of the subsequent by-election was a Labour Party candidate. In very clear terms, the result of 2000 was a Labour gain from a Speaker hold. I take the point that Betty Boothroyd would have returned to being a Labour *member*, but she was not a Labour *MP*. That is why I urge you to keep this page showing gains. doktorb _words^deeds 17:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dates for forthcoming elections

If the by-elections were going to be held on 29 November (two weeks after the others), wouldn't the writs have been moved yesterday, 6 November (two weeks after the writ was moved in those elections, 23 October)? There are no bank holidays in the relevant periods, so I don't see why the calendar math would be different. -Rrius (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was surprised to see that the writs were not moved. The next date is 6 December, which seems very unusual for a by-election, although Labour clearly think they've nothing to worry about in holding out.... doktorb _words^deeds 13:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

New article after 2015?

In passing, I notice that all these index articles are collated in roughly 20-year blocks. This suggests to me that after the 2015 election, there should be created (either 'all out', or at the very least as a redirect), "List of United Kingdom by-elections (2015-present)". Clearly this is not priority number 1, but just to get it out there for comment and discussion..... doktorb _words^deeds 20:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why this article can't be broken at an earlier point - at either 1997 or 2010 general elections, for instance. At either point the two long-term governments covered in this article remain intact in either one or two articles. Starting a new article after the next election would mean an empty page or a very small article for some time, and if the present government is returned (as coalition or otherwise) it would be spread over two articles. Probably not a huge deal, but if breaking a multi-term government can be avoided it should be avoided. FanN | talk | 14:29, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Asking for comment from User:Bondegezou, User:Headhitter, User:Warofdreams, User:Lugnuts and any others. Should we stick to roughly 20-year "blocks" for these articles (so begin a new "2015-present" article after next year's election? Or, as User:Fanx suggests, should another option be looked at to avoid an empty page/small article? doktorb _words^deeds 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I favour User:Fanx's approach. The breaks should be at historically significant times, so a break at 2010 probably makes more sense than one at 2015. Bondegezou (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:Bondegezou. If that turns out to be the consensus, it will be easy to take the current Parliament's (many, many, many!) byelections and transfer them over the new article. doktorb _words^deeds 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I agree with User:Fanx. I think a split in 2010 would make sense. That's more than 20 years (which was mentioned in another post) but as far as I can tell there are fewer by-elections now than there used to be decades ago, looking at the lists of the older by-elections. --Maxl (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Most of the blocks conform to major boundary changes so if anything we should be realigning this article which currently covers seats under four different sets. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Sinn Fein resignations

When I have tried to note the anomalous situation of the two recent Sinn Fein "resignations" in this article's first section my edits have been undone by User:Doktorbuk, with accusations that I am attempting to spread misinformation and lies. The article is currently as reverted by Doktorbuk, an edit that earned him a temporary ban for edit warring, and at risk of being banned myself I'm refraining from editing the article further. As it stands the article states that resignation means that an, incumbent was appointed on his or her own request to an "office of profit under the Crown". Since neither Gerry Adams nor Martin McGuinness could be said to have been appointed at his ... request, and a prime ministerial apology to Mr Adams supports this, I feel that the article is incorrect in this small matter. I am at a loss to understand why this appears as such a contentious edit, unless I have inadvertently started unpicking the very fabric that binds Northern Ireland to the Union. FanN | talk | 12:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Doktorbuk has rightly been banned for edit warring as he has reverted your edits without giving a satisfactory reason and without engaging in discussion on this Talk page. I think your text about the exceptions made for Sinn Fein MPs should be reinstated, but it might be better to have it as a sub-section within the existing section. Headhitter (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A subsection would make it clearer, I'm sure. Given the hostility and the number of reverts this has created you'll understand my reticence to further edit the article - at least in the short term. FanN | talk | 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

This article is a list of byelections and not the place for a detailed discussion of the constitutional complexities of the means by which the Belfast West and Mid-Ulster constituencies were rendered vacant. The issue is already explained at Belfast West by-election, 2011#Vacation of the seat and in Resignation from the British House of Commons#Sinn Féin resignations. I think the short explanation at the head of the table is sufficient, and because this article links to both the other articles where the situation is discussed in more detail, no further explanation is required; to have one would needlessly complicate matters. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Since these two resignations and the "constitutional complexities" they created (along with their subsequent by-elections) took place within the period covered by this article I wanted no more than to neutralise the now false claim that these by-elections were occasioned by the incumbent being appointed on his or her own request to one of the stewardships by deleting the six struck-through words, "Where the cause of by-election is given as "resignation" or "seeks re-election", this indicates that the incumbent was appointed on his or her own request to an "office of profit under the Crown"". No long explanations, since they were covered elsewhere. It was only when Doktorbuk started edit warring on this point that I expanded into outlining these particular resignations. I'd rather keep it simple, but it must be honest. FanN | talk | 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Seeking re-election on change of party allegiance

We have two forthcoming by-elections where the individual is seeking re-election on change of party allegiance. These individuals were both Conservative MPs, who then announced they were defecting to UKIP and standing down in order to seek re-election under their new party. You can't, of course, resign as an MP, so their actual formal departure from the Commons followed a day or two later. I feel they should be labelled as "Conservative/UKIP" in the incumbent column: I think this is both technically correct (they defected before leaving the Commons; other Wikipedia edits on other articles have supported that view) and better explains the situation to the user. User:Owl In The House feels they should only be labelled as "Conservative" in the incumbent column because UKIP don't have a whip in the Commons (but I don't understand why that means they're not UKIP...? Naomi Long is an Alliance MP, but I don't think Alliance have a whip).

I looked for some precedent here. Look down the list to 1982: Bruce Douglas-Mann was Labour and resigned on switching to SDP. He is listed in the incumbent column as "Labour/Ind SDP", so along the lines I favour. However, go to List of United Kingdom by-elections (1950–79) and look for Dick Taverne and he is merely listed as "Labour" in the incumbent column.

Comments from previously uninvolved editors would be welcome. Bondegezou (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that they must have defected prior to resignation/leaving the Commons, and I do agree that the precedent suggests we use /UKIP. But I can see both sides on this, as their sitting as something other than Conservative must have been for mere days. doktorb _words^deeds 10:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we know that they actually became members of UKIP before resigning their seats? Reckless was introduced to UKIP's conference by Farage as a Conservative MP, and Reckless said in his speech that he was not yet a member of UKIP. I think we should flag both would-be UKIP MPs as Conservatives for now. Headhitter (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

doktorb: less than "days" for Carswell. In Douglas Carswell's case, he announced on the 28th [1] and officially ceased to be an MP on the 29th [2]. With Reckless, it was 3 days from announcement to departing the Commons.

Headhitter: I'm not certain that whether someone has gone through the paperwork to join UKIP or not really matters. If someone is at a UKIP conference saying they've defected and will stand as the UKIP candidate, then they are UKIP. I'm following reliable sources in that. For example, this reliable source report said Carswell "has defected" (past tense) to UKIP. Likewise, this reliable source report on Reckless describes his defection as having happened.

I don't want to make this too much about technicalities. Rather, it is, following principles like WP:OBVIOUS and WP:ATE, about being clear to the reader. The context of these elections is that the person has changed party and is seek re-election under the new label. To understand what has happened, it helps the reader to see the change in party highlighted in the incumbent column. Bondegezou (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

IIRC, the convention of F.W.S. Craig, David Butler et al is to use the Con (UKIP) notation. RodCrosby (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well at least we're being consistent. I now see that, in the case of Bruce Douglas-Mann's resignation during the 1979-83 Parliament, both party allegiances are mentioned. Headhitter (talk) 13:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, RodCrosby. Following an external convention would be the most logical thing to do. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Firstly I am surprised at Bondegezou's approach on this one. I feel there are a number of things to point out here, not least that the point I am making has been misrepresented and indeed that the argument Bondegezou makes is not only pedantic but it is technically incorrect.

1. In response to the point about UKIP not having a whip, that is a valid point that has been completely misrepresented. Of course this doesn't literally mean having a whips office with an MP or MPs that instruct subordinate MPs how to vote, to suggest that is what was meant is ridiculous because obviously there are a number of parties in Parliament with only 1 MP. So please ignore Bondegezou's above interpretation of such comments.

2. The case of Bob Spink MP made it clear that you cannot defect to a party like UKIP that has never had elected representation within the Commons, the speaker of the house of commons redesignated Spink as an Independent MP on the grounds that UKIP had not previously secured elected representation in the commons, ergo they have "no whip"...it's just the terminology that's used. This is precisely why both Carswell and Reckless have had to resign their seats to become UKIP MPS (pending successful election in their respective by-elections).

3. Bondegezou rightly points out that an MP can't resign as such, due to convention and that they have to apply for an "office of profit under the crown". It is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who appoints an individual to such a position. It is abundantly clear from both Carswell and Reckless's defection speeches, that this was also their resignation speech. It is wholly unrealistic for Bondegezou to expect the Chancellor of the Exchequer to immediately appoint an MP to such an office within seconds. The Chancellor clearly has a large intray and offices of profit under the crown have to be applied for in writing and clearly due to the Chancellors intray this could take some time in processing, in the case of Carswell it took 24 hours. I hope that adds a bit of context to the process. It is unreasonable for Bondegezou to suggest an MP hasn't resigned when they say they publicly say they have on television, all because the chancellor hasn't done his part of the archaically outdated process. Other then purely being pedantic and selective about the facts, that is what this amounts to. At the end of the day the resignation and defection were one and the same thing.

4. It is to compare apples and oranges for Bondegezou to drag in the example of the SDP, of course the SDP was formed from sitting MPs breaking away and forming a new party, UKIP is not a new party formed by sitting MPs. If however there were sitting Tory MPs that broke away to form a new party within the commons, then that would be the same as the SDP and would follow the SDP precedent, this however doesn't, this follows the previous Conservative/UKIP defection where there is a clear precedent set much more recently then the SDP formation.

Aside from all of this, the technicalities which way against Bondegezou's argument, lets ignore the fact that the speaker of the house of commons has set a precedent, lets ignore the process for resigning as an MP, lets ignore all context. In any case it really is a major stretch of reality for anyone to suggest that the label "Conservative/UKIP" is an accurate reflection of the situation. I genuinely can't believe for the sake of a day, this point is being made (being made incorrectly) as well. I did expect better from other editors for whom I have respect to be quite honest.

I am going to revert this back to the baseline, we are all agreed that they were Conservative MPs and the addition of UKIP is currently under discussion. Owl In The House (talk) 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Owl, my apologies if I misrepresented you. Not my intention.

I still find your argument odd. Edits elsewhere on Wikipedia concluded Carswell and Reckless had become, albeit briefly, UKIP MPs. Whether or not they had a whip is beside the point: multiple reliable sources described them as having defected to UKIP. Your argument above is debatable as far as Commons procedure goes and constitutes original research given it is not supported by any reliable sources. To say that "it really is a major stretch of reality for anyone to suggest that the label "Conservative/UKIP" is an accurate reflection of the situation" seems odd when multiple reliable sources say they moved to UKIP and only your constructed argument appears to exist to the contrary. Can you re-state your argument with any sources?

My core point remains that it is clearer for the reader to label these individuals as "Con/UKIP" because it better explains what happens. One can imagine a situation where an MP resigns and is then persuaded to stand in the subsequent by-election for a new party: in that case, the incumbent column would only give their old party. In this case, these individuals defected and sought re-election having changed allegiance. Their actions were the actions of ex-Conservative MPs acting in the interests of UKIP. This is made clearer by the "Con/UKIP" label.

Most editors in the discussion so far favour "Con/UKIP" in the incumbent column, but I'm happy to await further input from others. Bondegezou (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious that they FIRST became UKIP members and THEN resigned. Therefore they were UKIP members of parliament for a brief period of time, even if it only was hours, whether you like it or not. Therefore the label should be Con/UKIP! You'd better not revert it again. --Maxl (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Can I also point editors to the prior discussion at the top of the page (Talk:List_of_United_Kingdom_by-elections_(1979–present)#Holding_party_-_at_the_last_election_or_at_the_vacancy.3F) on related issues and how the matter is handled by reliable sources? Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe this discussion is still going on but here are some reliable sources to confirm that Bob Spink was redesignated as an Independent on the grounds that UKIP do not have a whip in the house of commons.

The Independent: "To complicate things further, Spink was redesignated as an independent MP by November 2008; on the grounds Ukip had no whip in the Commons."

New Statesman: "The first, and so far only, Conservative MP to defect to Ukip was Bob Spink, who joined the party in March 2008 [although he was redesignated as an independent in November 2008]"

So, no what I am saying is not original research as you suggest. When using sources, it's important to use them for fact finding and not to simply regurgitate headlines designed to sell newspapers and catch people's eye. A clear precedent has been set that you can't defect to UKIP and remain an MP. Yes, the processes for putting these alterations in place isn't instant (due to the archaic nature of Parliamentary procedure) but it is clear that you can not defect to UKIP and remain an MP. Again, this is precisely why both men have put themselves up for election under their new party colours.

Again their resignation speeches and letters were made at the same time as their defection, they were one and the same thing. Now lets also remember that when MPs resign they resign with immediate effect (there is no notice period). If an MP says he/she has resigned, then they have, it's as simple as that. Being appointed to an Office of Profit under The Crown is merely a mechanism that facilitates that to satisfy the oddities of the British Constitution. We've been over this.

I can't believe you're trying to say an MP hasn't resigned yet when they've just said they have. This truly is a baffling point to make. Just as another reminder, in both cases, the resignation and defection were within the same speech. They were one and the same thing. It is ridiculous to say that one thing happened before the other, it was all in the same speech. This beyond pedantic and as I've pointed out technically incorrect.

As for the point about clarity and reader friendliness the "Conservative/UKIP" label doesn't give the clarity you suggest it does, indeed it makes it more misleading. In terms of adding clarity, that's what the "Cause" column in the table is there for. The current note doesn't add much in the way of clarity. Aside from being factually correct and reflective of reality; It would be more reader friendly for the party label to be "Conservative" with the cause saying something like "Resigned in order seek re-election upon defecting to UKIP".

As an editor for whom I respect as an asset to wikipedia, I really am surprised at your approach to this Bondegezou. I will revert Maxl's edit. This is an ongoing discussion, so we revert back to the baseline. Owl In The House (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My preference is for using the MP's party allegiance as of the date they "resign" their seat, in these cases that would be UKIP ... not Conservative (as the party they were previously elected for) and not the non-existent Conservative/UKIP. If an MP states (before resigning from Parliament) they have resigned their [originally elected] party's whip and transferred their allegiance to another party (or has become an independent) then that should be clarification enough of party status. If however an MP were to resign from Parliament prior to announcing their joining another party then original (elected) party status should stand, and simply stating before resigning that they intend to join another party after the resignation is not enough to change their party allegiance - at least, as far as this article or the by-election article is concerned. As for a speech declaring both defection and resignation ... defection from a party is by the simple action of stating one is no longer a member of the party while resignation from parliament is a process that includes accepting an office of profit and necessarily comes after any speech in the House of Commons. Simply put, one cannot make a parliamentary speech once one has resigned, so any such defection (and/or change of allegiance) comes first. FanN | talk | 11:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On further reflection is seems the problem is not one of an MP's shifting allegiance prior to resignation but one of how our tables are laid out. If the column for the Incumbent's party were renamed as Elected As then most of this issue could be buried.

It could also be represented as;

By-election	Date	Incumbent	Party		Winner	Party		Cause
Rochester and Strood	TBA	Mark Reckless		Conservative, then	TBD		TBD	Sought re-election upon change of party allegiance
				UKIP

FanN | talk | 12:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Owl In The House, thank you for your considered reply. I'm afraid it still looks like original research to me. You haven't presented any sources to support your claims re Carswell and Reckless. Rather, you have presented sources referring to Bob Spink's case. That was a different set of events and, I believe, you have misinterpreted what happened with Spink. There is nothing in UK constitutional convention that stops an MP from defecting to UKIP. Spink's case was complicated, in part by his poor relationship with UKIP, which he soon left.

Can I attempt to sum up? Everyone except Owl favours noting the defection from Con to UKIP in the incumbent column in some way or another. Owl favours the incumbent column saying only Conservative. Is that correct? Bondegezou (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Any further advances on the discussion to date? It seems to me that most of us (that is, me, doktorb, RodCrosby, Maxl, Fanx, Headhitter) favour including UKIP under the incumbent column in some form; User:Owl In The House opposes. That seems to me sufficient WP:CONSENSUS to restore that change for Carswell and Reckless and make a similar one for Taverne. I initially posted about using a "Conservative/UKIP" (i.e., party elected as/party when resigning) notation. RodCrosby suggested the slight variation of "Conservative (UKIP)" after Butler. Fanx has proposed a more complicated split row approach. I will make the change to "Conservative/UKIP" for now, but suggest we discuss further whether to keep that specific formulation, tweak it (e.g. to "Conservative (UKIP)") or adopt Fanx's system. OK? Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I find myself feeling like a child not wanting to choose between parents, but I have to agree that Owl's view is not one I can fully support (as I said above, I do understand exactly why that view exists, all that said). But I support User:Bondegezou/the majority position. doktorb _words^deeds 16:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said before, chronology states that both men FIRST changed from the Conservatives to UKIP and THEN they resigned from Parliament. Which means that they were UKIP members of parliameent, and never mind if there was a UKIP whip or not. Thus, both affliations should be mentioned. That's simple logic! --Maxl (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Undent. Haven't read whole argument, but get the gist. I can really see both sides of argument, first guy reaction was that con/ukip is mad, the idea that they held the seat as UKIP is...technically correct, but only due to a weird technical constitutional quirk. I would describe it as de jure true but de facto nonsense. I sorta get the point about making it clearer that the incumbent switched (isn't really needed when they win, but might be if they lost), but would say the Cause column is ample for that. However, I'm not that bothered and there seems to be clear consensus, so am not arguing against it, however, I think this...argument via technicality (wikilawyering?)...should absolutely not be used to suggest that, to use the current example, Clacton was a UKIP hold. The colour change should always be done on the basis of the seat having previously been what it actually previously was, not what it could technically be argued to have been for a few hours while their resignation paperwork went through. Iliekinfo (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Standard psephological practice is that a 'hold' or 'gain' is respect to the last general election result. So Clacton is a gain for UKIP at the by-election and, if they win in 2015, it will count as a gain then too. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

References

UKIP gain, change of colour

I note the gain colour has been changed to "plum" from grey-ish. It appears that heretofore only the Con, Lab, LD and Nationalists have had their colours incorporated into their gains record. Other parties' gains seem to be under the catch-all grey-ish colour scheme. UKIP has not (yet) achieved at least "third-party" status in elections, so I wonder if this colour scheme is appropriate. Agnostic myself, just opening up the debate! RodCrosby (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

"UKIP has not (yet) achieved at least "third-party" status in elections" They were 1st in the euros, 1st/2nd more by elections than anyone else, have been 3rd in opinion polls for years, 3rd in 2014 & 2013 locals. No reliable source lumps them in with others. Have the SNP achieved third party status at a general election? Is there any reason not to use UKIPS colours? Is there any reason not to use Respects colours? What's to debate? Iliekinfo (talk) 23:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, by "elections" I am referring to Westminster general elections (votes). The Liberals (and LDs) have been in the top three (UK) throughout their history. The SNP have been in the top three (except 1983 and 1987) in Scotland since 1970. Plaid in the top three in Wales at some points. UKIP may yet join the club, but they aren't there yet. RodCrosby (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we need to revert Clacton back to grey, for now, as assuming UKIP being something other than a "one off" is very close to breaking WP:CRYSTAL. doktorb _words^deeds 08:22, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Isn't it about time we gave each winning party a shade of their standard /meta/color ? There is no rational reason to exclude some parties while including others. The fact that they have gained a seat in Parliament makes them significant enough for this minor consideration. Furthermore, the shading should not be applied to the whole row - it doesn't make sense to have constituency, by-election date, retired or deceased ex-MP, their party and the by-election's cause all coloured to a shade that only represents the winning candidate and their party. FanN | talk | 10:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The standard works over the past 50 odd years seem to refer to Conservative and Labour as the "major" or "main" parties, Liberals and Nationalists as "third" parties, and all others as "Other" or "minor" parties. I suggest we wait until May 2015 to see if UKIP can render this nomenclature redundant. I am in favour of keeping the shading across the whole row however. Its purpose is to easily highlight a gain for the reader, and it's difficult to think of a better method than the current one.RodCrosby (talk) 12:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I find the amount of debate (ie any) over this weird. If ya feel that strongly change it back, it doesn't really matter. I don't get it...it's just the same shading that's done as standard across wikipedia...Iliekinfo (talk) 00:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Fanx and User:Iliekinfo, the thing is, we have had a very workable situation so far, which has not had supporters of the DUP or Respect or others demand their colour be used. UKIP winning a seat has now brought the situation into question. We don't know if UKIP will win loads of seats to become a "main" party yet, so implementing a change from just one by-election victory is not to be passed without debate. The precedent it sets could be very significant (do we go back decades to retrofit gains from other parties? Do we add UKIP onto infoboxes for the next general election as they are now to be considered "main" for the purposes of election articles?) I think it is skirting on CRYSTAL to implement a UKIP colour on this article, and wonder if it's better left undone for now. If Rochester/Strood makes it two seats, then maybe the argument can be had again. doktorb _words^deeds 10:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and that would mean treating all parties equally yet we are accepting that UKIP, SDLP, and Respect are somehow less equal than the Conservatives, Labour and LibDems. The one defining attribute here should be that a party has won at least one by-election, and by winning a by-election they are all equal. Marking some in a version of their party colour and others in grey (in itself suggestive of a win by an Independent) is showing favour to the older established parties. There is also confusion in the use of the same (LibDem) shade for Liberal and Social Democrat - that's just lazy. As for definitions such as "main", "third", and "minor" parties having any relevance to Wikipedia - leave that nonsense to the press, we are not supposed to be partisan. It is in no way WP:CRYSTAL to state that UKIP (or Respect, or SDLP, etc) has won a by-election - subsequent general election wins or losses are not the concern of this article, which deals entirely with by-elections. I struggle to understand by what measure CRYSTAL has anything to do with this, unless you're assuming that by marking a by-election gain with a party colour is somehow conferring major-party status on a minnow. If that were the case the solution is achingly simple ... stop thinking that way. How info boxes are formed, and how many parties they are to contain is nothing to do with how by-election gains are represented. FanN | talk | 14:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Something else that I had trouble getting my head around; that we should in any way not make a policy on this because it "has not had supporters of the DUP or Respect or others demand their colour be used." It should not be up to a partisan group to lobby for their inclusion, it is up to us to make sure we are inclusive without having to have our exclusivity pointed out to us. FanN | talk | 14:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@User talk:Doktorbuk, if this were a question of mainness of parties, we should follow RS which do (for the time being, meaning for the time of the election(s) in question) call UKIP a main party. BBC guidance they should be treated equally, etc. However, I don't think that's a thing. I really don't think there's anything special or significant about coloured shading, it's just something wikipedia uses when a party has a well known colour....it's not intended to bestow any kind of special status. It's used in many many articles without (AFAIK) comment. Iliekinfo (talk) 21:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur with Fanx that using a different colour here does not create any sort of precedent for whether UKIP should be in an infobox on another article. We use distinct colours for smaller parties on all sorts of articles: I see no problem with doing so here. Bondegezou (talk) 09:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

New article?

It was discussed above, and consensus seemed to favour a new article for 2010 onwards. Do we still want to go ahead with that? I'd say we should as the article is getting quite long now and a "2010 to present" article would now have a reasonable amount of substance. Frinton100 (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems sensible to me. Bondegezou (talk) 06:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, in the absence of any objections I've gone ahead and done it. Still needs some tidying though. I've also re-directed all of the generic pages like List of UK by-elections to the new article. Frinton100 (talk) 13:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

2000 Falkirk West cause - explaining edit

For the 2000 Falkirk West by-election it says that the cause was "Resignation following election to the Scottish Parliament", but this is slightly misleading. Dennis Canavan had been a member of the Scottish parliament for around 18 months when he stood down, in the words of his article "to concentrate on representing his constituents in the Scottish Parliament", so it was not his election that triggered the contest. There was also the issue of his break with the Labour Party, but I think it is best to say "Resignation in order to concentrate on his role as a Member of the Scottish Parliament" and have edited the page accordingly. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2021 (UTC)