Talk:2001 United Kingdom general election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


Why is there no indication of electoral participation/abstention ? --Hubertgui (talk) 06:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea. But shoudl we have sub pages of all the voteing. example:

2001 UK general election/Beckenham Reults

Then on the page the results for that constitunecy.


I personally would feel that would be too much balkanization. If you want to put this type of information on Wikipedia, I would suggest putting it on a page called Beckenham (etc.), so that results from other elections and general information on the constituency (geography, history, list of MPs voted from the constituency and whatever else you can think of) can be added on the same page. Andre Engels

corrected link to current to remove a redirectSandpiper 6 July 2005 00:13 (UTC)

"Khendon (A landslide is a large swing, not a large victory)"

Khendon: I think in U.S. usage "landslide" is definitely "a large victory". I don't know if this might confuse anyone.

The OED says "a sweeping electoral victory" -- User:GWO

Hmm. Interesting. I can't find anything supporting my position. Ho hum. - Khendon 11:42 Oct 1, 2002 (UTC)

I've moved this page to UK general election, 2001 This is the format used for the vast majority of elections on wiki, namely [[{country} {election}, {year}]]. The other British election pages will be renamed also. It makes sense to have the one universal template used everywhere rather than a different format for British elections. ÉÍREman 23:11 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

How about having the number of seats that each party stood in? Otherwise it would seem extrodinary that, for example that UKIP failed to win a single seat, while Kidderminster Health won a seat despite getting 362,076 fewer votes. Saul Taylor 09:55, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Majority question[edit]

Could someone explain the sentence, "Labour kept an overall majority of 167 (was 179) and 247 (was 254) over the Conservatives"?

Acegikmo1 16:01, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think it should be "Labour kept an overall majority of 167 (was 179), and a majority of 247 (was 254) over the Conservatives".

New Chart[edit]

See User:Ugen64/Sandbox for a new chart I have adapted from the Canadian federal elections pages. It looks okay, IMO, but it needs better colors -- someone should take a look at it, fix any mistakes, etc. ugen64 03:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Health Concern[edit]

I've changed the displayed title of the party from "Kidderminster Health" to "Health Concern". I live in the constituency that the party won, and "Health Concern" is overwhelmingly the name used locally. I don't think I've ever heard anyone use "Kidderminster Health". Actually, given that the party's full name is "Independent Kidderminster Hospital and Health Concern", there may be an argument for it to go in the "Independent" column, though I haven't actually done that. Loganberry 02:03, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)


The Speaker of the House of Commons, Michael Martin, was in place as speaker in 2000, so would have contested this election as "Speaker", as in 1997. Is this true, and if so, shouldn't it be added to the table? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the number of seats in the table is the speaker is 659. The statement at the top of the article about "641 seats" therefore needs to be corrected, unless I'm very much mistaken. 10:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with this. This would make it consistent with the other UK election pages. |crnt2 10:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Addition to table[edit]

I think the results table should also include a column denoting the party leader at the time, as the Northern Ireland pages (2003 and 2007) do. This gives people a bigger idea of the personalities and issues at hand, amongst other things. For example, a column should be added between 'Party' and 'seats', with columns stating (in order); 'Tony Blair', 'William Hague', 'Charles Kennedy', 'John Swinney', 'Jeffrey Titford', 'David Trimble', etc.

Sharron Storer[edit]

I have merged some of the content from this article per the result of the AfD. Feel free to adjust formatting, etc. as seen fit. I will not be watching this page, please let me know if you have any questions. TCariMy travels 14:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Wouldn't it make sense to have photos of the party leaders closer in time to 2001, instead of these much later photos? /Vemodighet (talk) 17:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Seat changes[edit]

The infobox says Labour lost 5 seats. The table and the list of seats changes hands indicates it was a net loss of 6 (8 losses, 2 gains). One of these must be wrong.-- (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom general election, 2001. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 22:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)