Template talk:British political parties
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Colours
Are the colours used here the actual colours used by the parties, or can they be altered slightly? The blue link for the Ulster Unionist party is difficult to see, and the one for the Conservative party almost impossible to see. Thryduulf 08:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Except for the three parties I added and Jack modified, I'm seeing black as the background colour for the logos. I'm using IE 6.0.2900.2180 on Windows XP Pro SP2. I assume the bgcolor="#66c" type attributes work in some browsers. It would be good to have a consistent look for all the parties. --Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The colours are all working for me, as far as I can tell. I'm using Firefox 1.0 on Mandrake linux. The help about returns: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041109 Firefox/1.0 Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems that IE will not accept the three digit number attributes like bgcolor="#66c". It will only accept the six digit number attributes like bgcolor="#6666cc". Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:57, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I just fixed them. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:02, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you! --Cavrdg 16:41, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Parties and Order
The 12 there now are the top 12 in terms of votes received in the 2001 General Election. In descending order of votes received the order would be
- 1 Lab
- 2 Con
- 3 LDem
- 4 SNP
- 5 UKIP
- 6 UUP
- 7 PC
- 8 DUP
- 9 SF
- 10 SDLP
- 11 Green
- 12 SSP
In terms of seats fought in 2001, the ranking for these is
- 1 Con
- 2 Lab
- 3 LDem
- 4 UKIP
- 5 Green
- 8 SSP
- 9 SNP
- 10 PC
- 13 SF
- 14 SDLP
- 15 UUP
- 17 DUP
The 'missing' parties are
- 6 Socialist Labour Party
- 7 Socialist Alliance
- 11 Prolife Alliance
- 12 British National Party
- 16 Monster Raving Loony Party
I don't think we should add the missing the parties but I do think the order needs changing. The top three are OK but UKIP should be nearer the top. It would be good to group the four Northern Ireland parties together but that doesn't fit well in three columns. Would this be good?
- Lab Con LbD
- UKI SNP PC
- Grn UUP DUP
- SSP SDL SF
I'll leave it for the moment, anyway, until we have the background colours sorted. --Cavrdg 08:38, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The Lab, Con, LibDem seems obvious, but the order of the others is less so. Perhaps we should just make either the whole table or all but the first three alphabetical (by party name, not abbreviation). Which would lead to one of these layouts
Con DUP Grn | Lab Con LbD Lab LbD PC | DUP Grn PC SNP SSP SF | SNP SSP SF SDL UUP UKI | SDL UUP UKI
or perhaps an arrangement by column would work, based on national parties, Scottish/Welsh parties and NI parties. Unfortunately either the greens or UKIP will need to go on the regional parties list.
Lab SNP DUP Con SSP UUP LbD PC SDL UKI Grn SF
Thryduulf 09:28, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I prefer not to do it by votes but by Seats Jack Cox 14:16, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldnt ordering alphabeticaly have less POV? Iain 11:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Northern Ireland
Wouldn't it be more appropriate to seperate the Northern Ireland parties into a seperate template, since it will make the template smaller/allow more room for more parties, and since the title is misleading - Northern Ireland (in stricter terms) isn't in Britain (but is in the UK, obviously) -- Joolz 23:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with Joolz here. Northern Ireland is a distinct entity in terms of party politics and isn't even in Britain, as Joolz has pointed out. TreveX 15:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Smaller with more parties
This template looks great but I think it should be made smaller. Compared to other templates designed for use at the bottom of articles, this one is quite large in relation to the amount of information conveyed. Take, for example, Template:FA_Premier_League, which has a plethora of information and is only slightly bigger than the parties template.
The logos can be scaled down slightly and still be easily legible. The largest difference will be in the size of the cell which contains them. The most important reason to make the cells slightly smaller is that it will allow the inclusion of all political parties.
I hate the BNP. But it is still a politically significant party in the UK because it is by far the largest far-right vehicle, has several councillors in the UK and commands regular press interest. 800,000 people voted for them in the European Elections.
This template does not reflect the full extent of political activity in Britain. TreveX 15:52, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that there should be more political parties. As distasteful as the BNP is, it got more votes in the most recent election than Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, the UUP, and the SDLP, and many, many more than the SSP. john k 19:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] European Parliament representation
I've added European Parliament representation, but I'm unsure whether to include Veritas in that, since they are represented in the EP, but he wasn't elected as Veritas. So should it be UKIP (12) and no veritas or UKIP (11) and Veritas (1)? -- Joolz 23:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- We should do it as the current makeup. If there was a defection in the House of Commons, then there is a change; the same should be true for the EU parliament. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:46, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
- I don't see how this is a problem. The numbers should be a current, accurate representation of the makeup of the various political parties. If someone isn't a member of a party's representation in the legislature any more, they shouldn't be included in the numbers. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- It's a problem because they're still a member of UKIP but they've had the whip withdrawn. -- Joolz 14:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Robert Kilroy-Silk is no longer a member of Veritas, so they are no longer represented in the European Parliament. I've made the adjustment to the template. TomPhil 17:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
[edit] Mortality
Just a note that I've reduced the LibDems' House of Commons representation from 62 to 61 following the death of Patsy Calton. Somebody remember to adjust the balance again after the by-election! -- Arwel 22:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Represented in the House of Commons"
Since Sinn Féin refuse to take their seats in the HoC (although they do make use of office facilities there), can they really be said to be "represented" there? Would "elected to the House of Commons" perhaps be better?
[edit] "Minor" Parties
Whilst I agree that some of the more major parties without significant representation should be included, the inclusion of the Communist Party of Britain is somewhat POV IMO. This party stood only 6 candidates in the last general election, and polled so few votes that it does not feature on the Wikipedia scoreboard.
If it is to be included, then we would have to include many, many more parties as well. We need a standard that determines whether we should include a "minor" party on the template. --New Progressive 13:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - I've changed the minor parties sections to include all political parties with no elected representatives (not including councillors), but who gained more than 10,000 votes at the last general election. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
-
- Minor parties should be removed entirely as this is to do with representation in the respective chambers, of which they have none Rob.derosa 07:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The template is titled "British political parties", the title makes no mention of representation in some assembly/parliament. New Progressive 14:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Though I can understand the 10,000 cutoff, I feel that if some parties are going to be represented in this way, then there are others who polled below that level who are at least as prominent. Both Mebyon Kernow and (dare I say it) the Monster Raving Loony Party, for example, have a long history in British politics and are widely recognised both within and outside the UK. I suppose it all comes down to "where do you draw the line?". Grutness...wha? 00:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] House of Lords
I'm not bothered at all about the addition of House of Lords info, just that the 3rd Viscount Esher has been dead since 1963, so his inclusion on the template may be mistaken. New Progressive 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, what's the distinction between a "Cross-Bencher" and an "Independent" in the Lords? --Jfruh (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dai Davies is not Independent Labour
More of a note, especially to the user with the IP address 172.200.80.56 , that Dai Davies is not a Independent Labour MP, but an independent. Both Dai, and his predecessor Peter Law were fighting the Labour party with "old labour" policies, this doesn't automatically make them Independent Labour though. Both were listed as Independent, and should therefore, unless 172.200.80.56 or anyone else can find any evidence of a switch to using Independent Labour, stay as Independent Mikebloke 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lords affiliations: cross-benchers, independents, etc.
I put a bit about this in response to someone else but nobody's replied, so I thought I'd give it its own heading to see if that brings any attention. Right now this template says that there are 196 Lords who are cross-benchers (which the corresponding Wikipedia page defines as meaning that they are "member[s] of the British House of Lords who [are] not aligned to any particular party", thirteen are "Non affiliated" (no link to any explanation) and one is "Independent" (with a redlink to "Lord Brett"). If anyone can explain the nuances of the distinctions among these three categories, this Yank is particular will appreciate it. ("Conservative Independent" and "Independent Labor" I take to mean individuals who have broken with the party leadership but still wish to indicate some sort of affiliation with the party's ideals?) --Jfruh (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Parties, especially at Lords level is generally irrelevant, so many choose to call themselves "Cross Bench". This is mostly due to the fact that usually they are MPs at Commons level that either lost or resigned due to age getting the better of them. The Lords also cover a lot less than the Commons, and is a house of okaying things more than anything. Political parties have less to fight over at that level. Non-affiliated are simply those who keep away from all parties, and Independent is pretty much the same thing at Lords level. Independent Labour/Conservative etc is different, at all levels of British politics, it means they don't take up the party whip, and tend not to be party members, or members with little party power, they follow the parties ideals but remain "Independent" so they aren't ruled by the Party. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I guess my main question is, why do we need separate entries for non-affiliated and cross-benchers? I've also reposted this question on Talk:House of Lords. --Jfruh (talk) 17:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] How about including Councillor count?
There will be way too many to include every single group with representation at local level, but perhaps it might be worthwhile to list the numbers of the main groups. I'm currently ploughing through all the council websites making a list, but it won't be done any time soon. I'll put them up somewhere when I'm done if anyone is interested. Mikebloke 16:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
