Talk:1993 Newbury by-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Swing

A swing between Labour and the Conservatives simply doesn't make sense, it's a nonsense, please explain and justify it, I cannot see any sense in having it. Whether are the sources supporting it? -- Joolz 11:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't read Swing (politics). Swing is only between Labour and Conservatives. There is no such thing as a Liberal Democrat / Conservative swing. Please stop vandalizing the page and suggesting there is. David | Talk 11:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even David Butler (as in the inventor of the Butler swing) talks about a swing to the Lib Dems in the Newbury by-election - see p.69 of his book on the 1997 general election. If even the inventor of the term thinks it is ok to use in this context, you're not on very strong grounds saying this is all wrong surely? Mark 86.53.37.182 20:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is another wikipedia article, part of which you wrote? There should be plenty of other sources saying the swing in the Newbury by-election is -12.5 if that really is correct. However, I don't find them. I found on the other hand plenty saying the swing is 28.4: [1] [2] [3] [4]. And don't accuse me of vandalism, I find the accusation rather silly. - Joolz 11:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you plenty of other examples where swing is defined as Conservative and Labour and no other party is mentioned. Your sources mean nothing: they are not experts at reporting elections. Swing is between Conservative and Labour only and to refer to it as anything else is vandalism. David | Talk 12:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, I can't comment on your expertise or otherwise on these issues, but I think you're being a bit overzealous here on the talkpage. "Vandalism" has a distinct meaning on Wikipedia, and it's very offensive to describe a bona fide contributor as a vandal. Joolz is merely another editor, whose POV differs from yours. Joolz is a reasonable man; if your POV has merit, you should be able to convince him through the power of reason and rationality; hurling insults and personal attacks will get you nowhere. --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 17:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I 'hurled' no 'insults'. I made no personal attack. It's a personal attack on me to suggest that I did. Meanwhile, there is absolutely no way that a calculation of Conservative gain and Liberal Democrat loss can be made into a swing. Swing is between Conservative and Labour only. Absolutely no exceptions. David | Talk 19:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that this discussion be taken to Talk:Swing_(politics), which is where it belongs--Po8crg 18:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that conventional swing is indeed calculated between Labour and the Tories. There are, however, plenty of exceptions in my experience provided that you actually specify who the parties involved are. This is produced by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, therefore I would suggest we take it as authoratitive since these are the elections to it. It defines conventional swing as I suggest (Lab-Con). Later in the article however, it produces multiple examples of swings between other parties, so I don't think including them is necessarily invalid at all.

I would suggest here that the swing is as follows:

Con to Lab swing: 12.5%

Con to LD swing: 28.3%

The four cited examples all directly specify that the swing is between Liberal Democrat and Conservative, so this is acceptable; I suspect that without an explicit specification as such the cite is ambiguous. I should also apologise for the fourth website (ukconstitution.net) as I actually am the webmaster, so being corrected is somewhat embarassing. --New Progressive 21:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Standard Note you quote is just Adam Mellows-Facer's opinion. I think I sent in several corrections to Standard Notes and Research Papers over the years then I just got bored with it. To take just one example, the SN refers to the 1935-1945 swing as being meaningless because "National Labour candidates contributed 1.6% to the National total in 1935". True to say that but totally irrelevant: most voters in 1935 understood National Labour to be in effect Conservative, and it was only the Macdonald family which thought of it as being Labour. What the SN says when giving examples is no more definitive than a newspaper article and I absolutely refute that it is 'authoritative'.

The reason why swing is used for Conservative and Labour only and not for any other parties is that it doesn't work properly for others. The calculation is only any use if you can take the result and apply it elsewhere to compare and contrast, and that only works for Conservative and Labour in practice. Look at the distribution of the so-called "Conservative - Liberal Democrat swing' and it's completely random. David | Talk 21:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I can't judge whether you've attempted to actually have this page corrected. Assuming good faith and that you have, then there is one of two possibilites:

They think you are wrong
They are lazy

If they think you are wrong, I'm inclined to accept their judgement. If they are lazy, it doesn't necessarily make you right. You may think Mellow-Facer's opinion is no more relevant than a newspaper journalists, but I would suggest that Parliament has employed the man and allowed his work to be published on their website - if that is not at the least a tacit endorsement of what he says, I do not know what could be.

Your point about the randomness of Con-LD swing is interesting, but I don't entirely know what practicality of comparison has to do with this. My understanding of swing (limited as it is) derives from the notion that it is a good indicator of the number of voters moving party between given elections. Obviously, the Con to LD swing of 28.3% shows us just how monumental the movement of voters was in this by-election, much more that the Con to Lab 12.5% swing, which is totally incidental in this case because there was no move of voters to Labour really - the voters were clearly moving from Con to LD - what caused the Con to Lab swing was the horrific drop in Tory support. --New Progressive 22:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longest ballot paper?

I think Newbury will continue to have been the longest ballot paper as the Haltemprice paper will probably be printed in two columns.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newbury by-election, 1993. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090821060016/http://www.by-elections.co.uk/newbury.html to http://by-elections.co.uk/newbury.html

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 00:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bannon - reason for standing.

I noticed that it states that "Andrew Bannon, a Labour member from Slough stood as a Conservative Candidate in protest at a Conservative member standing as a Labour Candidate in the 1992 general election in Slough." However the 1992 result in the article for the Slough constituency does not indicate anybody stood using the specific label Labour Candidate. There is a candidate listed as Independent Labour, but nothing in the article indicts that this was a Conservative. I am aware there were a few instances around this time of people standing under dubious labels (famously the Literal Democrat Richard Huggett), so the story is entirely plausible and it could well be the Slough article is wrong/missing information. However, there is no source cited here which would verify this was the background to Bannon standing and his choice of label, which I think is a bit of an issue. Dunarc (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]