Talk:United Kingdom general election, 1992
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Re the recently added paragraph about it being the Sun wot won it - was there not some polls/analysis afterwards that proved sufficiently many people had been persauded by their powerful headline to alter the result? I remember reading it in a book - but can't remember which book! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 12:57, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Fraud --> Electoral Reform
Changed the section on the alledged fraud and "granny farming" to a more general case regarding calls for electoral reform. Examples of all political parties seeking to maximise their vote by hook or by crook are numerous and this article implied that a. only the Tories do it and b. it won the Tories the 1992 General Election, both of which are at worst untrue or at the very least disengenious, shallow and misleading.
[edit] Thatcher resignation
I changed the sentence Margaret Thatcher had been forced out of office to ...had resigned as Prime Minister. Thatcher never lost the election for the leadership of the Conservative Party, she resigned, so I think this wording is more accurate. I also think that forced out does not present a neutral point of view. Alun 06:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Introduction
I have removed the comment that Major was 'poorly regarded by some' - (implictly) well regarded by others then. Have also removed the comment that Lamont's budget was considered populist by some: again bias POV and redundant. Lest we forget: 'All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias.'(KRC58)
- A neutral point of view means all points of view should be included (as long as they are verified from good sources), and that respective points of view must be presented in a neutral way, so as not to imply that one or another POV is correct. But your point is valid, every politician is poorly regarded by some. By the way please sign your posts on talk pages so people can identify you, you can do it with four tildes (~). Alun 05:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The effect of the Poll Tax on voter registration.
I heard somewhere that one of the reasons the Conservatives defied the polls and won the election was because that one way to avoid paying the Poll Tax involved unregistering oneself from the electoral register. The Poll Tax was so unpopular that there was a mass campaign of non-payment, and those involved were more likely to vote against the Conservatives than for them. This meant that people who refued to pay the poll tax were'nt on the electoral register and were denied the vote in the 1992 election, and the pollsters did not take this into account. Is there any substance behind this theory (preferably in the form or references and external links)? Ae-a 14:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- An ICM opinion poll of March 1992 asked "Are you registered to vote in the forthcoming general election?", with the answers being 92% Yes, 3% No, and 5% Don't know. I'm not sure how accurate that is.--Johnbull 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Neil kinnock.jpg
Image:Neil kinnock.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 05:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)