Talk:2009 Glasgow North East by-election

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

First speaker ever (in UK parliament)[edit]

I think the reference to Sir John Trevor should not be made here, or at least be accompanied by a `disclaimer' pointing out that in 1695 there was no United Kingdom, so this is the first time in UK history that a speaker was forced from office. The 1695 event took place in the English parliament (also at Westminster, but a different parliament).

--Mathsman91 (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lib Dem Candidate[edit]

Katy Gordon is the Lib Dem candidate in Glasgow North, not North East! The Lib Dems are yet to select. 212.248.216.98 (talk) 10:11, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The European election result for this constituency is relevant and interesting, given that it took place quite recently, but it may be overdoing it to list the candidates' names. PatGallacher (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 election result[edit]

Given that figures are available for Glasgow North East (and it is the same boundaries, there's no changes on GNE and the Holyrood equivalent is Glasgow Springburn), and given that this election for 4 years more recently, plus it took place with a normal set of candidates, I think it is worth including in terms of having a rough idea of the politics of the constituency (which you really don't get from the Speaker without opposition data). I would agree to removing the candidates' names if people want to do that. Otherwise, it should be kept. GullibleKit (talk) 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a table showing the full European result overstates its importance to this election. Given that the election was under a different voting system, for a different level of government, the result can give only a very rough idea of what may happen in the by-election. In addition, while the precise figures given are mapped to this seat, the constituency was far larger, and so tactical voting considerations were different. I'd far rather see a few sentences summarising the result and covering the degree of relevance (I'm assuming that this can be sourced - if not, then nobody else has considered it relevant). Warofdreams talk 14:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined to agree on some points. The different voting system probably overegged the minor parties' vote, especially the Greens, UKIP and BNP who seem pretty high. However, the 2005 result is equally irrelevant given the lack of major parties standing. In other by-elections, say back in Norwich North, I would have been against including non-Westminster results but because of the very unusal nature of the election here in 2005, I think the Euro result is useful. I've tidied it up by removing the candidate lists and by removing the parties who haven't announced candidates for the by-election yet. Please keep giving feedback. Thanks GullibleKit (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with including this, but it would be better to include the full result. Remember that e.g. Tommy Sheridan, who is fighting this election as a Solidarity candidate, was no. 2 on NO2EU's list at the European election. Agree with taking out the candidates' names, is there a way of cutting down the box to get rid of this space? PatGallacher (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airport terror attack hero John Smeaton set to pull out of by-election race[edit]

--Mais oui! (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Good timing. Might make the discussion below moot.... Anyway, I would say not to include this anywhere until he personally confirms it, as of now it is just tabloid 'sources say' junk, and other news today shows how gullible newpapers are when people phone them up with a 'story'. MickMacNee (talk) 13:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was from yesterday, and he has already denied it today in The Sun. MickMacNee (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Surely pinocchio is going to pull out - hasnt Ponsonby seen to that.--Vintagekits (talk) 01:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jury Team metadata[edit]

Discussion here. MickMacNee (talk) 13:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting silly. We need to improve the article by adding brief and relevant information on the candidacies - what possible purpose is served by omitting it? Furthermore, the practice in Wikipedia articles is to present information in paragraphs, rather than "bullet point"-style - so mentioning several minor candidates in one paragraph is entirely desireable. Warofdreams talk 13:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no logic to your changes. I said all I needed to say in the edit summary, which was quite clear, and you've just flat reversed it. Your edits are skewing this article into something about JT and not about the election, that is not what we do here. You would not go into such detail about any of the other candidates when such detail is available in other articles, so why Smeaton? It totally unbalances the article. The bit about Swinebourne is utter irrelevance, and when the text mentions he was the first to declare, you don't then do a run on into events that happend months later. And some of the stuff about Smeaton is probably not even accuracte either. To say JT 'selected' him for example, I have not thoroughly checked, but I understood that the selection is actually done by the public, through their website. They are backing him, as the public's choice of JT Independent. MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am using the material available in references. The most I could find about the JT selection process is that they claim to have consulted in the constituency before making the appointment - that could be mentioned, but it doesn't seem anything unexpected. I do want to see a little more information on the other candidates; this would be appropriate and in line with other by-election articles, and there are plenty of relevant articles for any half-notable candidate which could be used to cover this. Two to three sentences covering a candidate and their party is entirely reasonable. The link between Swinburne and Smeaton seems clear - they both sought JT support for their candidacy. While this might not merit a mention if only one was standing in the election, given that Swinburne is still planning to stand, it seems very relevant. Warofdreams talk 14:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the lede[edit]

this from the cite..Michael Martin has told MPs he intends to stand down, so becoming the first Commons Speaker to be effectively forced out of office for 300 years. ... is not really correctly reflected in the lede, he steped dow, resigned...he was not actually forced from office. He was under pressure to go and resigned, to say outright that he was forced from office is wrong and misleading Off2riorob (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think with some people who resigned a post, including Martin, he was effectively forced out. PatGallacher (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the BBC news source for that sentence says the same thing, so if it is misleading its the BBC and other medias fault not our own. Its reliably sourced which is the mail thing. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A total of 13 candidates[edit]

This is an update of the candidates standing, can someone please update this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8329597.stm

(TheGreenwalker (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Conservative candidate[edit]

Is there a reason that the narative section does not mention the Conservative candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.166.243 (talk • contribs)

Please ALWAYS sign your posts! To answer your query: please read WP:BOLD. --Mais oui! (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought I was signed in. Qlangley (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gain/Hold?[edit]

I know that this seat is on technical terms being picked up by Labour from a non-partisan candidate, but Martin was originally elected as Labour so describing the result as a Labour gain seems a bit muddled. Perhaps the party-win template would be better than the party-gain? GullibleKit (talk) 09:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey :P It is a defence of the 2005 result, so "Labour gain" is technically correct. There's a proviso in the text about why this is just in case doktorb wordsdeeds 09:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Glasgow North East by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glasgow North East by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Glasgow_North_East_by-election&oldid=1217226098"