WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template 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
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Colours[edit]

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)

Parties and Order[edit]

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

In terms of seats fought in 2001, the ranking for these is

The 'missing' parties are

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?

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)

Northern Ireland[edit]

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)
I third that or alternatively you could change the title of the template to [[Political parties in the United Kingdom]] which would avoid the problem.--Vintagekits 11:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Smaller with more parties[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

European Parliament representation[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
I agree, however, I've discovered a secondary problem. What about MEPs who have had the whip withdrawn? Ahsley Mote was a UKIP member but had his whip withdrawn and is listed on the EU's website as 'independent' [1] -- Joolz 12:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
His own website says he is an independent member. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]


Mortality[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

"Represented in the House of Commons"[edit]

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?

I concur. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Minor" Parties[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

House of Lords[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Also, what's the distinction between a "Cross-Bencher" and an "Independent" in the Lords? --Jfruh (talk) 05:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dai Davies is not Independent Labour[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Lords affiliations: cross-benchers, independents, etc.[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

How about including Councillor count?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

David Trimble[edit]

It doesn't look like this template has been updated since Trimble left the UUP for the Conservatives on April 17. I'd make the change but I'm not sure what category he was included under in this table's breakdown before the switch -- was he a cross-bencher or unaffiliated or what? Or what he already taking the Tory whip in the Lords before he formally switched, since his larger agenda seems to be to revive the old Conservative-UUP alliance? --Jfruh (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hide function[edit]

Can a hide function be added here given its large size? Thunderwing 10:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conservative MPs - Derek Conway[edit]

There are now 196, not 197, Conservative MPs, as Derek Conway is no longer in the party (Tory whip withdrawn from Conway). I will update the template accordingly. Rossenglish (talk) 14:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Co-Op not a minor party[edit]

The Co-Operative Party is little more than a faction within Labour now, but it is certainly not minor. Major political figures such as Ed Balls stand for it. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The use of "minor" is a little subjective. Perhaps "Other parties" would be a better description? Road Wizard (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have trimmed down the Co-operative party note as it seemed far too long. All the information is already provided in the Co-operative party article, so all that is needed is a brief note on the relationship. Readers who are interested can then follow the link to the article to find out more. Road Wizard (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, looks better. However, the numbers speak for themselves:
"In 2005 there were 29 MPs in the Co-operative Parliamentary Group, 9 Members of the Scottish Parliament, 4 Members of the Welsh Assembly and 11 Members of the House of Lords, as well as over 700 local councillors."
These are respectable numbers for party outside the big three, let alone Plaid and the SNP, but because they're so conflated with the Labour party, it's hard to know how to list them.
I added Veritas and SSCUP as they have both had elected representatives in the recent past. MSP and MEP in their time. MK also has significant council representation.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tom Wise[edit]

MEP Wise was suspended from UKIP in 2007,[2] left IND/DEM in June 2008,[3] now sits as an Independent[4][5] amongst the Non-Inscrits,[6][7][8] and no longer appears on the UKIP website as a UKIP MEP.[9] Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 01:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CPGB-ML[edit]

Why does UpDown remove references to the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) from the list of minor parties. It's perfectly legitimate to have it there, it's certainly "minor", but is an active little party producing a bimonthly magazine and many leaflets and pamphlets. It also makes interventions at many demonstrations and events. Why does UpDown wish to censor this list? If he/she removes references to the CPGB-ML, I will gladly add them again. It's nonsensical to regard this as "vandalism", a charge which I vehemently reject! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime (talk • contribs) 13:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion criteria[edit]

I think that we should change "Minor parties" to "Other parties". Under this heading we should list all registered, currently active political parties that have now, or used to have (as notability is not temporary) at least one representative on a town, borough, district or county council, London Assembly, Welsh Assembly, Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland assembly, House of Commons, House of Lords, or European Parliament. I would not count having parish/community councillors as notable, as they are often uncontested and have little power. See List_of_political_parties_in_London, List of political parties in the United Kingdom by representation, List of political parties in the United Kingdom. BBC list of Sept 2008 of registered parties:[10].

The Cooperative Party has representation in Westminster, as part of Labour & Coop, so they should be listed there and not under "Other" or "Minor". Fences and windows (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parties to include under the proposed criteria

These parties could be listed under other, as all are active and have or had representative at town council level or above:

National or regional

Local

A distinction could be made between local parties (within one county or borough) and the others, as the local groups will not have national notability. I have undoubtedly missed some smaller parties that have or used to have representatives. Fences and windows (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't forget to include the Communist Party of Scotland which was represented on Fife Council by William Clarke, who now sits as an independent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National parties without a history of representation

Is the inclusion of national political parties with a high public profile that do not and have not achieved electoral success warranted in the template? Examples might be:

Fences and windows (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC: Inclusion criteria for British political parties

I have no strong feeling on this, but would go against listing parties who have only been represented on local councils (i.e. a residents association). They are often very minor, specific to their town and rather un-noteworthy. I also wonder about the number of them - and whether we could feasablly list them all. If we have an article listing all UK political parties, do we need to list very minor ones here?--UpDown (talk) 06:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thoughts on the minor parties would be, a) how many candidates do they field? and b) how successful have they been in the various bodies? The SSP at one point had seven or eight MSPs, for example (Solidarity is an outgrowth). MK has respectable council representation; Forward Wales had AMs and fielded many candidates; the EDs have fielded many candidates; Liberals also field many candidates (but not too much success - some councillors though)... ditto Socialist Labour. The CPGBs tend to employ fronts - if one is to go, I would suggest they do.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments. I agree on the local parties, I will source them and include them in the List article. I was presenting them for completeness, as some of them currently have more elected representatives than some of the more obvious minor parties! So the discussion is mainly about including all regional and national parties with current or previous representation, and whether any of the regional or national parties that have never had representation warrant inclusion.
  • We can look at number of candidates as a criterion too, I suppose.
  • I wouldn't support having CPGB-ML on the list of minor parties, as it has basically no public profile - what people know as the CPGB these days is the CPGB-PCC, who produce the Weekly Worker. Nor CPGB-PCC, for that matter! Fences and windows (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CPGB-ML and CPGB-PCC are really tiny --- most reckon a dozen members tops. The only far left parties of any size (and they are pretty anaemic too) would be the CPB, the SSP, Solidarity, the Socialist Party (England and Wales) and the SWP. I suppose RESPECT too if one counts them as far left. Given that none generally reveal their membership; I dare say electoral participation is the only thing to go on. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I would suggest no. of candidates is a better guide than supposed membership - which they can exaggerate. It at least suggests that they have a level of organisation. As for the CPGB, there are so many left wing groups, with similar names that most of us - even the political anoraks - confuse them quite easily. The SSP has had a pretty high profile in Scotland, but it remains to be seen whether their split with Solidarity (I know - such a cliche!), and current lack of MSPs will continue.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should you use participation in electoral politics as the sole criterion to judge a political party's credibility? So someone with limitless funds can set up a "party", field a huge number of candidates (who receive derisory votes) and, there you have a it, a fully-fledged party exists. I think not. I think it's much more important to judge what a party does in a broader sense in terms of its day-to-day work on major political issues and its engagement with the masses. In that respect, the CPGB-ML is certainly a credible party. In Britain one of the key issues of the day is the criminal Iraq war. Hundreds of thousands of people have turned out at demonstrations against the war. The CPGB-ML is always there at the national demonstrations, and often has the largest, most vocal and most obvious presence among all of those parties claiming to be communists. The CPGB-PCC does nothing much else apart from publishing its "Weekly Worker" news sheet. Their presence on the streets (where it counts) is derisory these days. So, if you live in the real world, the CPGB-ML actually exists, but I suppose that if you only inhabit cyberspace then stick with the "CPGB-PCC". It's up to you, these are just my thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldbeforehistime (talk • contribs) 01:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't support the inclusion of either CPGB. Your opinion on the relative merits and demerits of the CPGB-ML and CPGB-PCC, while interesting, doesn't constitute a reliable source. Because there are a lot of registered parties, we need some criteria for including them in this summary template. Handing out leaflets at demonstrations isn't a good criterion. Fences and windows (talk) 23:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
CPGB may attend a lot of rallies, but so the SWP (who pop up everywhere and hand non-members their placards), Militant Labour, Respect and so on and so on.--MacRusgail (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think participation in national/regional electoral politics is an excellent criterion for inclusion. It helps to make a separation between movements, campaign groups and political parties. After all, if a political party is not campaigning for power of some sort, it's not a political party. However, although necessary, it is not a sufficient criterion, as there are one-issue, one constituency parties that are not British or notable enough. I suggest the following two criteria. The numbers are slightly arbitrary, but I hope it's a start:
* any party that has had at least one of its candidates elected to Westminster or the devolved parliaments should be included, with the exception of single-constituency candidates (i.e. local party).
* any party that has fielded more than a hundred candidates in two successive westminster elections should be included, or fielded in over 50% of the available seats in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland in two successive Westminster or devolved parliament elections.
This would allow for notability for smaller parties while avoiding one-election billionaire funded vanity projects. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Two points that are gaining consensus - need to be regional or national, not local, and should contest elections. If by the vanity project you mean the Referendum Party, it is not registered or active so wouldn't be included anyway. I'm wary of seemingly arbitrary cut-offs like 100 candidates for Westminster - isn't it 50 for TV election broadcasts, and this would be quite difficult to source. However, what would be the list of "Other parties", applying your criteria? Compared to the 12 "Minor parties" now included, my proposal lists 24 "Other parties", (upgrade one, lose one, add 14)[20] according to the criteria of not only standing in one local area and having had representation at least at town council level, as well as two national parties that have a high public profile (judged by press coverage) but haven't had representation, i.e. SLP and CBP. Fences and windows (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would agree with "other parties" as it's less loaded than "minor parties". That they're not on the main list of parties is clue enough that they're probably minor. I'm a little worried by the concept of "press coverage"; I think it's vague and much harder to establish at the margins than other criteria (and it's the margins that cause headaches).
I actually cannot think of a reason why the CPB should be there, apart from the fact that it feels odd to someone like me who's over 30 that there might not be a communist party of any size. They have put up fewer candidates than so many other excluded parties recently. For example here. They exist, but are they to be considered a proper political party in the sense we mean here? Perhaps there needs to be another category of "other political movements"? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Out of all the national/regional parties without a history of representation but who actually contest elections, CPB and SLP seemed to be the most prominent, but it is admittedly somewhat subjective. I'd not insist on their inclusion, although SLP did stand 49 candidates at the last general election. "Vote for yourself rainbow dream ticket" stood 23, but they were mostly one person - George Weiss - and one candidate achieved a wooden spoon record of gaining a single vote. Workers' Revolutionary Party stood 10, and Legalise Cannabis Alliance stood 21, but they've deregistered. Alliance for Green Socialism is the only other with 5 or more candidates. As for the parties contesting the European elections, Jury Team seems like a flash in the pan, as are NO2EU by their own admission, Libertas are still an unknown, and all the others are very minor. Fences and windows (talk) 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any thoughts on the inclusion of One London among the national/regional parties? They used to have two members of the London Assembly, who were elected as UKIP and lost their seats at the next election. London might be argued not to be a "region", despite its population. Fences and windows (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinking of another way round this - there is one thing that can be said for CPGB, Mebyon Kernow, and the Liberals/SDP (not Lib Dems) - their age. All of these parties have been around for two/three decades or even more. I think staying power has to be taken into account too. [edit to add - I notice that CPGB (ML) was only set up in 2004 - so scratch that! Quote -"It should not be confused with the Communist Party of Britain, the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), nor with the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist). Too late, it looks as if I did!]--MacRusgail (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I sincerely don't think that all of the local parties (particularly those who have never elected a councilor, but even some of those who elected a lone councilor) deserve to get their own page. With that said, an overall page on the movement of local parties/residents' associations does strike me as being in order (as many of these parties are somewhat similar in this regard). I think this would be a better way to deal with what are, for all intents and purposes, similar parties with similar identities and purposes in different located. Even those that have been elected tend to be similar to a lot of others.

Of course, there are exceptions. The Health Concern (which elected an MP) comes to mind. I'd also include Referendum (notable if just for the sheer number of votes it got in 1997); if a party breaks 1% nationally in an election (on the back of an envelope that gives about 300,000 votes), I would be inclined to include it. For reference, that vanity project did get more votes in its one election than UKIP ever got in a Westminster election.

In general, though, I do feel that we need a third "historical" category. The CPGB would qualify for this (they elected three MPs at different times and had a substantial share of the vote for some time, even if that time was over 50 years ago). The Liberals (historical), Social Democrats, Alliance, Whigs, and so forth would fall under this category.Tyrenon (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the list of minor parties shouldn't be more than 30 - as the absolute maximum. If this is generally agreed, then we need to find clear criteria which, although arbitrary, will not produce more than 30 minor parties. For many parties, electoral hurdles are suitable, but some - particularly socialist parties - either do not contest elections, or contest them only as part of a coalition. I'd suggest that for parties which do not contest elections or do not prioritise this, they must undertake real-world activity nationally (whether throughout the UK, or throughout one or more of Scotland, Wales, England or Northern Ireland), whether standing in elections, campaigning on the streets or in organisations such as trade unions (so the Socialist Workers Party, for instance, would qualify). There must be an expectation that the party will continue to exist, rather than being a short-term coalition or protest group, and it would certainly help their case if they have a history of activity stretching back several years. Warofdreams talk 11:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no summary of the above discussion and there are a range of viewpoints. The inclusion criteria are still not clear. Representation on an elected body is a clear criterion. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked at the age, registrations, electoral history, and success of the various parties and the best fit to the parties listed on the templates is restricting to parties:

  1. having a consistent history of political activity over a period of 20 years or more;
  2. having MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 20 years; or
  3. fielding candidates in 4 or more constituencies and gaining more than 0.01% of the total national vote in the most recent general election.

The age criteria is necessary to include the CPB, SPGB, SWP and SDP, because their electoral history and history of representation is very poor, so they don't meet any thresholds for candidate or vote numbers. Other parties meeting this criterion are Mebyon Kernow, National Front, Progressive Unionists, Loony, and the Liberals. It does mean the addition of the WRP because they were founded before the SWP.

Everyone above seemed to agree that parties with a previous MP, MSP or assembly member should be included. Parties meeting this criterion are Progressive Unionist, Scottish Socialist, ICHC and Solidarity.

I think the final criterion does need to be spelled out in numbers but it can always be changed depending on circumstances. If we say 3, then the Lincolnshire Independents would qualify, so 4 is just enough to ensure a wide geographic spread without disenfranchising notable parties restricted to a single county like Mebyon Kernow. The limit on the share of the vote is necessary because there are parties competing in more than 4 constituencies (Pirate Party, Alliance for Green Socialism) that would otherwise qualify for inclusion, but these parties get very low numbers of votes. If you set the limit at the share of the vote, and leave out the threshold on the number of constituencies, then very localised parties like the Mansfield Independent Forum might qualify. So, by setting the threshold at both spread and share, the template can be limited to the current parties. DrKay (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have realised that very localised parties can be excluded by raising the thresholds for number of candidates and vote numbers, but introducing a new criterion based on geographical spread to ensure that notable nationwide parties are not removed [21]. As there were no objections last time the criteria were drafted, I have set new limits and adjusted the template to suit. DrKay (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"gaining more than 0.01% of the total national vote in the most recent general election" seems like an overly easy target to beat. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, what about "more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years"? That sets a higher bar numerically. DrKay (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems more sensible. BTW, is someone going to add the new Lords (including 1 Green)? Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jury Team[edit]

JT should be included in this template. They are a brand new nationwide (non-party) party not formed through defection or reformation, which in its first election feilded 59 candidates and received nearly 80,000 votes in the 2009 European election coming 13th (by comparison Plaid Cymru who were 8th and got the last seat available, polled 126,000). They are contesting the Glasgow by-election and are likely to field MPs in every consituency in Great Britain in the next general election. I don't beleive they intend to stand in local elections, so I think it is pretty odd to exclude JT from this template, yet include parties soley on the basis that they have (only) ever been elected in local elections, or have only ever got their parliamentary seats through defection/reformation. MickMacNee (talk) 12:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current numbers[edit]

Shouldn't this template and other articles be altered to note that Eric Illsley lost the Labour whip some time ago and sits as a 'Labour independent'? Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Steven Woolfe[edit]

... has left UKIP, but I'm unclear on what EuroParliament grouping he's in now, so I haven't changed the template yet. Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

House of Commons Numbers July 2017[edit]

I have taken the Conservatives down to 317 and put Independents to 2 so as to reflect fact Anne Marie Morris has lost Conservative whip. Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also I am assuming the other independent is Lady Hermon, but she uses the description Independent Unionist, which is used as a label for the NI Assembly figures here so should this be changed to 1 Independent and 1 Independent Unionist? Dunarc (talk) 19:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parties to add?[edit]

If I've understood the agreed inclusion criteria (which I possibly haven't), I think we should add Thurrock Independents, Aspire (political party) and People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets (but not OneNation). Bondegezou (talk) 13:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm. Possibly I haven't understood the inclusion criteria. (Perhaps they could be re-stated?) But these three are all groups with 6+ councillors on local councils, all groups consisting of individuals elected under other labels (UKIP for the first, Tower Hamlets First for the latter two). Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They don't meet criterion 1 because they are only represented at a local level nor criterion 2 because their councillors are restricted to a single geographical area (and council). They haven't received any votes because the councillors were elected for other parties so I don't think they meet criterion 3 either. There are several of these locally isolated independent groups but the criteria were designed to exclude them and focus on those parties that operate more widely. DrKay (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removal of Britain First[edit]

I propose the removal of Britain First from the template given that Britain First was deregistered as a political party with the electoral commision in November 2017 and has not re-registered and is therefore a political organisation and not a political party. What does everyone else think? C. 22468 Talk to me 15:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De-registered parties are usually removed. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to make the case for keeping them on the template. Given how they've been in the news recently, they seem to still be active and notable. An organisation can be a political party without registering, e.g. because they support a separately registered coalition, their candidates stand as independents, or they prioritise other activities above standing in elections. Warofdreams talk 18:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sympathetic to Warofdreams's view, although our template inclusion rules are very based around election results or elected representatives obtained through defection. I'd leave it for now because it's a current issue. Bondegezou (talk) 09:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that Britain First has shown no indication of plans to re-register as a political party I would suggest now its probably time to remove them from the template.C. 22468 Talk to me 22:57, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[22]. DrKay (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When should we drop...[edit]

Both the British Democratic Party and the National Liberal Party seem like yesterday's news. Do either of them warrant inclusion in the template as current parties? The BDP stopped being significant when Brons didn't stand for re-election as an MEP in 2014; their electoral results since have been derisory. The NLP got over 5000 votes in those 2014 Euro-elections, but have done little since. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've cut them for those reasons. I think the inclusion criteria should be considered as examples of the sort of parties that can or could be included rather than an instruction that every party that meets the criteria should be included (there are some local parties for example that are still excluded even though on a strict reading they meet one of the criteria). DrKay (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using EP webpage as a source[edit]

For the numbers of MEPs by political parties, this information has mostly been compiled looking at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/crosstable.html . However, there's evidence this may not be 100% reliable as a source.

When I was editing Template:UKEUparties on 14 January, I'm pretty certain it listed Jonathan Bullock as having been and Independent since December. Then on 16 January DrKay reverted an edit by Bondegezou, noting that it now listed him as being a member of the SDP - this seemed strange, as there was no other evidence that he had done this, not even from the SDP who heavily promoted it when Patrick Flynn joined. However, absent any source refuting this, it appeared reliable enough. Since today, however, his EP profile now says he has been a member of Democracy in Europe Movement 2025 (Greece) since December. Once again, there is no other evidence of this being the case, and seems to make even less sense than him having joined the SDP, so I have elected to list him as an Independent instead. Furthermore, the two Conservatives who defected to the EPP are still listed on their profiles as being members of the Conservative Party, even tough they were expelled last year.

In summary, as this source has been used a lot following the mass exodus of UKIP MEPs: should we consider it a reliable source for UK Party membership; should we consider it a reliable source for EP groupings (Mike Hookem apparently moved from the EFDD to NI today? I made that edit, although I don't know if we should believe that or not); and should the UK party membership/EP grouping of any other MEPs be changed? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for that analysis. I think we should use it as a source, but recognise it is fallible. Where possible, we should triangulate information to more than one source. Bondegezou (talk) 10:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Brexit Party[edit]

Should we show the new Brexit Party as having 2 MEP? Farage and Woolfe have both said they will stand for the party. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+ Nathan Gill now. Bondegezou (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
7 MEPs are now listed by the European Parliament as in the Brexit Party (although not including Woolfe, who's still listed as an independent). 5 of these were independents, 1 was Thurrock Independents, 1 Libertarian. I think I've changed the template correctly now to cover that, but others please check! I've thus also removed the Libertarian Party and Thurrock Independents from the template entirely as they do not qualify to be listed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Independent Group[edit]

Now this might *become* a political party but is it a political party *today* as this template uses the term? Cameron Scott (talk) 11:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's why we have a footnote on the matter. That would seem to be sufficient to solve the conundrum. Bondegezou (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inclusion criteria 2019 discussion[edit]

I believe the inclusion criteria should be if you have a council seat you should be mentioned, if you used to hold a seat then you go to the bottom category. Not even sure what the current inclusion criteria is, looks arbitrary at 1st glance? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bondegezou I was still editing so didn't see you revert my change. It isn't clear what inclusion criteria is at the moment though? Abcmaxx (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The inclusion criteria are listed in the template documentation underneath the template.
I suggest you seek agreement here before making major changes to the template.
As far as I remember, the argument against the approach you suggest was that it is relatively easy for a small, local party to get a council seat or two locally, whereas this is a template for nationally significant political parties. Bondegezou (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I propose having added a section for parties with a local councillor elected as that is national significance, as they have more say than a party with no representatives anywhere in how the country is run. There's not that many, and also no-one can argue the Yorkshire Party or MK are national parties. Not sure why this template has to be discriminate anyway, any existing party fielding candidates should be included, but thats a different matter all together. Abcmaxx (talk) 08:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template would become unmanageably big were it to include every party. The Electoral Commission has about 200 parties on its books. Bondegezou (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should include all parties that hold a council seat somewhere in the UK. If it were to become very large, that section could be collapsed as the bottom part of ((Lincolnshire elections)) is. Number 57 10:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, perhaps the template could be simplified into three categories (1) Holding seats in the national parliament (2) holding seats in a devolved parliament or the EU parliament and (3) holding seats at local authority level. There is a lot of duplication at present, plus things that aren't parties (like the Lords Spiritual). This would free up space for more parties to be listed, instead of listing some parties several times. It could look like this. Number 57 11:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that would be a very different template: that's not necessarily a bad thing, but the current template serves a purpose of giving a quick view of how many seats the main parties have in the different legislatures &c.
Given this is a navigation template, perhaps we should have something close to Number 57's suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think it would be more useful to use this as a navigation template rather than a seat summary. Another thought was that it seems rather odd that the BNP aren't on the template – although they're a shadow of what they used to be, they still exist – so perhaps a fourth group of parties that are still in existence and used to hold seats could be added? Number 57 11:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For what it's worth, I think the current criteria works well enough and shouldn't be changed. Not too broad as to include every minor party that isn't actually notable and won't have articles (and thus reducing the utility of the template), but wide enough to include some of the larger local parties. ToastButterToast (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My two cents. I think we need to balance accuracy with notability. In Hartlepool, a newly elected councillor represents Veterans and Peoples and I'd be very surprised if that is not a red-link. I would be very surprised if Our West Lancashire exists as an article, too. We shouldn't be a repository for each and every localist/micro party in a Town Hall. Of course we must document the exact make-up of each council, but providing articles, and therefore links, for each and every party and micro-party might be overkill. It would certainly attract AfDs (and in some cases of minor parties, I would be the editor creating those AfDs!). As Bonde says, there are over 200 parties on the Register of Political Parties: links to all 200 would be far too much to manage, and would be a stepping stone of red-links and to-and-fro inclusion debates. Let's try to focus on notable parties than trying to include all of them. doktorb wordsdeeds 17:02, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed the BNP very recently. The inclusion criteria they were in on is "gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years" as they got 180,000 at the last European elections, 5 years ago, but they're not even standing in the forthcoming ones, so I jumped the gun by a couple of weeks and chopped them. Basically, they imploded soon after and thus have dropped out of the 5 year window we use.
Britain First qualify (>5000 votes at the 2016 London Mayoral election), but were removed because the party was deregistered by the Electoral Commission in 2017. Bondegezou (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This debate seems to have kicked off by the removal and re-addition of the BNP but the BNP meet the current inclusion criteria because they got more than 5000 votes in the 2016 London mayoral election. Consequently, the inclusion criteria do not need to be re-examined because they already allow this party's inclusion. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right: my apologies, mea culpa, re-add them. (However, no, the debate was kicked off by Abcmaxx's proposal to include all parties with councillors. The BNP thing was a tangent.) Bondegezou (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are already templates showing parties with elected representatives: Template:Political parties in Wales, Template:Political parties in Scotland. If there is a desire to show local parties then I think that is best shown on Template:Political parties in England. I see no reason to duplicate templates and I strongly doubt whether there is consensus to merge the constituent country templates into the UK-wide one. This template should be retained to show the parties campaigning beyond a district level. DrKay (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welsh Assembly[edit]

4 Welsh AMs (Caroline Jones, Mandy Jones, Mark Reckless and David Rowlands) have joined the Brexit Party, but I've gotten lost as to what they were before. Reckless was in the Conservative group (but not in the party). Both Joneses left UKIP last year and were sitting as independents. Rowlands left UKIP yesterday(?). So, should the Welsh Assembly line now say:

Labour (29) Conservatives (11) Plaid Cymru (10) Brexit Party (4) Independent (3) UKIP (2) Liberal Democrats (1) ?? Bondegezou (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Other parties: qualification watch[edit]

I've just been checking which parties qualify under our criteria in the "Other parties" row. The template says, "Notability for the "Other national and regional parties" section can be established by:

"having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years;

"having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas;

"gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years."

We have also removed parties that are eligible under these criteria, but which are clearly now defunct, e.g. have been deregistered by the Electoral Commission. (Deregistration alone is not necessarily reason to remove a party if it still remains active.)

In case this is useful for other people, I share my notes here. We can then update this as necessary. Bondegezou (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Parties currently in list:

Should we tighten inclusion criteria?[edit]

One of our criteria for inclusion in this template is "gaining more than 5,000 votes in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years." Is this too easy to achieve? I note that Valerie Brown, the Burning Pink candidate, has come last in the 2021 London mayoral election with 0.2% of the vote... but that's just over 5,000 votes, so the party qualifies. I've added Burning Pink to the template. Other London mayoral candidates with tiny vote shares have also received at least 5,000 votes, so we have to include things like the London Real Party, the Count Binface Party and Let London Live that barely seem like functional political parties.

I'm not certain what to increase the number to. Looking at the London Mayoral election, 40k would work to exclude the vanity parties that seem to be nothing more than a name to have around a candidate. Maybe 50k is a rounder number? Bondegezou (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50k would work for London mayor, as that would exclude the parties that are labels around a single celebrity. However, if the number of votes is set too high, it would exclude regional parties that nevertheless have a political presence. I can think of two other alternatives: one is changing "any election" to "general election" and the other is using a percentage instead of a number. Or we could do both: such as, "gaining more than 3[?]% in any election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years or more than 5[0?],000 votes in any general election in the United Kingdom in the last 5 years." DrKay (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the results for London Mayor have tested the criteria because of the turnout and significant number of votes even for the also-rans. I think if you amend the 5,000 votes to General Election and 50,000 in devolved elections, that'd stop any one-off results like this skewing the template too widely. I support your criteria and the need to be tough on inclusion, it just needs to be amended in times like this. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Instead of thinking about rules first, I thought I'd look at the current "other" parties (as laid out in qualification watch above) and just introspect on my gut feel. Does this feel like a political party that is a significant (if minor) part of the UK landscape? I think...
These are notable parties that we want in: Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party; Alba Party; Aontú; Christian Peoples Alliance; English Democrats; Independent Community and Health Concern; Liberal Party; Mebyon Kernow; Official Monster Raving Loony Party; Progressive Unionist Party; Propel; Reform UK; SDP; Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition; UKIP; Women's Equality Party; Yorkshire Party
Why do I feel those should be in? I guess a mix of: they get attention from the media, they have some electoral success, they have a sustained history of action.
My maybe pile would be: Animal Welfare Party; Ashfield Independents; Aspire; Count Binface Party; Heavy Woollen District Independents; Heritage Party; Lincolnshire Independents; National Health Action Party; Reclaim Party; UK European Union Party
Shouldn't be included: Burning Pink; Let London Live; London Real Party; Rejoin EU
I also tried to think of parties not listed that we might want to include... the ones that come to mind are Gwlad, Saoradh, All for Unity and Socialist Workers Party (UK) (part of TUSC, who are included). Bondegezou (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Broadly agree, though I know how hard it is to justify these things on "gut feeling." I'll have a think myself about how to balance the two things we need to look at here: the 'notability' factor, and the electoral credibility factor. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Yes, I don't think we should use "gut feeling", but I think it might be useful to look at where are gut feeling leads and then reverse engineer a set of criteria that gives a sensible answer (although I'm sure it won't give the exact same answer). Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like DrKay's suggestion of a rule based on gaining more than x% or more than y votes. For the x% rule, I suggest 5% is a more obvious cut-off, usually being what you need to recover a deposit. We don't want a 5% rule for small elections: 5% in an individual local council ward is too easy.

It seems reasonable to keep unchanged "having MEPs, MPs, MSPs, or assembly members within the last 5 years" and "having elected representation in at least two geographically separate local council areas". Bondegezou (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So, what about this...

I'd like to suggest tightening the second criteria to: having representation in at least two geographically separate first-tier local council areas. I've always supposed this to mean borough level or above, but it doesn't actually specify. I think including town or parish councils is going to lead to an unmanageable list of insignificant parties. DrKay (talk) 17:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taking The Initiative Party[edit]

DrKay, what does this edit mean? What property does the party lack that's necessary for inclusion? — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Template:Political parties in the United Kingdom#Inclusion criteria and the talk page sections above this one. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tightening inclusion criteria 2023[edit]

We were discussing this in 2022 (above), but discussion petered out. I remain of the same view that the current inclusion criteria are too broad. So, combining my and DrKay's suggestions from above, what about:

Yay or nay? Bondegezou (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories