Talk:House of Commons of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

What the name of this page should be

See Talk:British House of Commons/Page name—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marnanel (talk • contribs) 19:14, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Continuing the above discussion, I'm thinking of changing the page name to either House of Commons (Britain), since it's not called the "British House Of Commons" officially as the name implies. Any discussion about this would be appreciated. -Halo 16:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

How can not voting with the party lead to deselection?

though in some circumstances, an MP may be threatened with deselection if he or she does vote with the party

An MP may be deselected for voting *with* zir party? What are these circumstances? Marnanel 19:14, May 2, 2004 (UTC) I think a "Not" has been left out. john

I've removed the clause as no explanation has been given. It seemed redundant as it was. Might it have been reffering to immediate deselection? Is that the same as expulsion from the party? Mr. Jones 23:56, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Its happened a few times, what happens is that the whip is withdrawn. The whip ensures MPs vote in the way the party wants them to at important divisions. If the whip is withdrawn from an MP, it leaves him isolated in Parliament and effectively makes him an independent MP. If there is a three line whip, then every MP MUST vote and vote the way that the whip wants. This happened to Derek Conway after it was shown that he paid his sons to do no work —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.2.123 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Where does the "Father of the House" sit?

The Father of the House traditionally sits on the first seat beyond the gangway (as viewed from the speaker's chair) on the front row.

Is this true? I thought those seats were just taken by senior figures - I don't think Tam Dayell sits there. Heath may have beached himself in that position but I recall him doing so before he became FofH in 1992, and sat there because he was a former PM. Doesn't Skinner sit in that seat on the Labour benches? Timrollpickering 12:17, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

"Members of a legislature of a non-Commonwealth nation" are ineligible for membership?

Is this still the case? I thought it was relaxed in the early 1980s. There was a case when an SDLP member was elected to the Northern Ireland Assembley of the time (which had the same rules on eligibility as Westminster) but was not allowed to take his seat as he was a member of the Irish Senate. I think this led to this law being revoked. Timrollpickering 08:14, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I think Ireland is excluded from that, just as Irish citizens are entitled to vote just like Commonwealth citizens. A member of a non-commonwealth legislature is still ineligible. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/GE-cands.htm - Chrism 12:38, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

Apportionment

I'm interested to know 'how' the 600-plus seats in the UK House of Commons are apportioned among the various countries and the shires that make up the United Kingdom. Is there an Act of Parliament that says that Scotland/Wales/etc. shall get 'x' number of seats? Why do Scotland and Northern Ireland have more seats in the Commons than their populations would normally allow? Has there ever been a movement towards "one vote - one value" in the United Kingdom, like in Australia in the 1970s? Could somebody more familiar with the minutiae of British elections and politics please help me on this issue? Regards, --Humehwy 19:38, Jul 2, 2004 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, there was legislation (recently repealed as part of the Scottish Parliament legislation) that required Scotland to have a minimum number of seats. Northern Ireland has similar - it must have between 16 & 18, and usually 17 unless the Boundary Commission see a case for a deviation. The other bits I can recall are that Orkney & Shetland are guarenteed a constituency of their own, and the City of London cannot be partitioned.

Seats are reviewed every decade or so. Generally the Boundary Commission will build them out of local government wards. They're required to aim for near parity, except where local factors or the inconvenience of changes recommend against it. So for example in the latest proposals for Northern Ireland, Fermanagh & South Tyrone has about 6500 more voters than West Tyrone, but rather than transfer wards from Fermanagh (district) to West Tyrone, the proposal is to leave them as they are, tolerating the discrepancy as a price worth paying for seats to be natural (West Tyrone is exactly equal to Omagh and Strabane district councils for eample).

The principle is that an MP represents a community rather than a fixed number of voters, and so community ties and geographic considerations play a large role in determining the distribution of seats. Timrollpickering 23:02, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

To answer your other question about proportional representation. Yes the UK seems to be moving in this direction somewhat. Recent elections to the European Parliament and elections for London's Mayor were conducting under two different forms of PR-like voting systems. However there is no likelihood of the General Election system changing any time soon. Pcb21| Pete 23:30, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Peers

If a member of the House of Commons inherits a peerage, he can no longer sit in the House, correct? In the article, it seems that one needs to be summoned to the Lords in order to be disqualified from sitting in the Commons. Specifically, I was wondering about Viscount Castlereagh - apparently, he served as Leader of the House of Commons until 1822, but he became Marquess of Londonderry (a hereditary peerage) in 1821... ugen64 23:52, Sep 28, 2004 (UTC)

Well, since 1999, peers can serve in the Commons. Londonderry, however is an Irish peerage, so it did not give Castlereagh the right to sit in the Lords. Similarly, Lord Palmerston spent his entire career in the commons, as his viscountcy was Irish. john k 01:27, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Thanks. ugen64 22:01, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Also courtesy peers have always been able to become members of the House of Commons. The Marquess of Lorne for instance was a member when he was the heir to the Duchy of Argyll. He lost his membership when he became 8th Duke of Argyll himself.Gerard von Hebel 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Long table

I do not intend to erase all of User:Jord's hard work, but I found the "fun table" showing the relative sizes of the parties inappropriate. Firstly, the table is, I think, of somewhat doubtful value: it does not show any information not already displayed in the article. Secondly, the table is large and impedes the article. Thirdly, it extends the size of the overall article to nearly a hundred kilobytes: by far too long. Finally, I find the table unnecessary. For these reasons, I regret that I have had to remove the table from the article. -- Emsworth 23:46, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I got the idea from similar tables used for the Houses of the Canadian Parliament, which are far smaller in membership. I like the concept, particularly for the British House, due to the fact that it showed how few seats there are relative to the members therein and how huge the Labour majority actually is. Although that is already clear in the numbers, a picture is worth a thousand words. You're right though, its extreme size is a serious flaw. If there is any desire to have it there, I think if I played with the code it would be possible to make it considerably smaller. I just copied the code used at the Canadian House of Commons and it is rather cumbersome, with a lot of repetition. - Jord 00:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Follow-up.. I've decreased its size considerably.. it is at User:Jord/play, let me know if it is worth including. - Jord 00:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Protocol question

As an American, I came to this page looking for an answer to a minor question: Outside the Commons, what is the polite form of addressing a Member who holds no government office? I assume if I meet Tony Blair I should say, "Good morning, Mr. Prime Minister", but what do I say if I meet George Galloway? (Before I say, "Thank you!", that is.) JamesMLane 09:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Just "Mr Galloway" (or "Sir", if you're feeling really obsequious, I suppose) - they have no special style or form of address outside the Commons Chamber (well, except the post-nominals "MP", of course). The Prime Minister is addressed as "Prime Minister" and all other Government Ministers (including Secretaries of State) as "Minister" (as in the sitcom Yes Minister and its sequel, Yes, Prime Minister), except Ministers in the House of Lords who could alternatively be addressed as "Lord <Title>" (or "My Lord", if you're feeling extremely obsequious). This is all when you're talking to them as Ministers in their official capacity, of course - if you met Tony Blair at a party you should really just address him as "Mr Blair" (or "Tony"). Proteus (Talk) 09:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Perhaps there's a difference here because Bush, unlike Blair, is the head of state. I think that, even if you meet Bush at a party, the correct form of address is "Mr. President". As for addressing MP's, your information might usefully be included in the article, but I'm not feeling particularly bold at the moment, so I'll leave that decision to editors more familiar with the article. JamesMLane 10:11, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, none of this obsequious nonsense regarding forms of address is uncontended. I personally wouldn't dream of addressing anyone using their title, unless I were compelled to do so. For example, were I on trial, I suppose I might address a judge or magistrate in the customary way. I have addressed letter to MPs "Dear Mr. xxx", and I would address a letter to a minister (or a Prime Minister) in the same way. In law I am a British subject; but I consider myself a citizen, and I decline to confer on any other citizen an honorific to which I am not also entitled.

--MrDemeanour 14:41, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What's the Gov't majority?

What is the Government's majority? The article currently says 68. I got this figure by adding together everyone in the opposition (including the vacant seat of the MP who died recently). I left out the undeclared seat in South Staffordshire and Sinn Fein/IRA, since they have not taken their seats, and this is what I have came up with:

$195+61+6+3+9+3+1+2+1+4+1=286$

I then took that number (286) and subtracted by the number of Labour MP's and got:

$354-286=68$

However, If we include the the undeclared election South Staffordshire and exclude SF, the majority becomes 67. If the vacant seats are left out completely, the majority is 69.

Which is correct? - Hoshie.Crat 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I do 646-5 (to remove Sien Fein) = 641 total MPs in the Commons; 641-355 (Labour MPs minus the Speaker) = 286; 355-286 = majority of 69. Therefore, by my calculation, Labour's majority is 69 (assuming South Staffordshire exists and is either "vacant" or "about to be Tory again").—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaajones (talk • contribs) 10:02, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Is it legitimate to leave out SF, though? In theory they could change their minds about taking their seats and become a factor in the equation at any time. As for South Staffs, though undoubtedly the Tory will win it back (presumably he's missing nearly 2 months' pay!) it doesn't count at the moment. -- Arwel 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

SF don't take up their seats in the Commons and therefore cannot vote on any matters. Therefore they don't exist in the legislature. As South Staffordshire does exist it doesn't matter if it's vacant or not - it's still a seat. Since election night was over I've thought of the majority as being 69 (it was fairly obvious that the previous Speaker was to be re-elected).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaajones (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the correct calculation does not leave out SF. Instead, it leaves out the Speaker + 3 Deputy Speakers. -- Emsworth 19:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Forms of address when there were multi-member constituencies

Today people say things like "my friend the honorable member for Colchester" to refer to each other in the chamber. What did they say when there were 2 members for Colchester? Morwen - Talk 1 July 2005 08:16 (UTC)

There would have been two different constituencies, with different names. For example, Colchester North and Colchester South. So the address might become: "my friend, the honourable member for Colchester North".

Pearcej 06:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

No, Morwen means before 1945 when some boroughs still elected two members. I think they were called the senior burgess and the junior burgess, depending on length of service. Adam 06:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Akin the Senators in the United States, I guess. But what if they both joined the house at the same time? :) Morwen - Talk 15:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, at the moment I believe they work out seniority (for determining who is Father of the House, for instance) based on time since they first swore the oath, so I suppose the same practice would apply. (Presumably the practice of swearing the oath in alphabetical order dates back quite a long way.) Proteus (Talk) 16:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Last Peer as prime minister

The last peer to serve as prime minister was the Earl of Home in 1963. He was a peer when appointed, but then almost immediately afterwards renounced his peerage and sought election to the Commons in a specially caused by-election when a Tory MP resigned to make way for him. He could not have resigned his peerage before becoming PM because that would have made it constitutionally impossible for him to be asked to form a government. (Only MPs and peers can be asked.) It is however perfectly possible constitutionally to be a prime minister without being either an MP or peer. For example, PMs hold office without a seat in the period from the dissolution of one parliament and the assembly of the new parliament. It is one of the quirks of the British constitutional system that, since the 18th century while one must be in parliament to be eligible to be asked to form a government, one doesn't always have to be in parliament when prime minister, though in practice the job cannot be done if you aren't in it. It may date from an earlier convention that said that Ministers of the Crown couldn't sit in parliament, and so had to take the Chiltern Hundreds one appointed, though that convention went out many centuries ago. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Home became PM on 19 October and disclaimed his peerage on 23 October. He was thus technically both a peer and PM for four days, but it silly to say that he was the last peer to be PM, because he was appointed PM on the understanding that he was going to disclaim his peerage. Had the Peerage Act not been passed earlier in the year, neither he nor Hailsham would have been considered as candidates for PM. The last peer to be PM in any real sense was Salisbury.
• "Constitutionally impossible for him to be asked to form a government"? The UK doesn't have a constitution, only constitutional conventions. So far as I know the Queen can appoint anyone she pleases as PM - whether they can gain the confidence of Parliament is another matter. But of course she follows convention in appointing PMs, and since the Parliament Act of 1911 it has been the convention that the PM must sit in the Commons. It is possible that there is now also a statute which specifies this, but I haven't heard of it.
• The convention that MPs had to seek their constituents' approval before taking office lasted well into the 20th century. Churchill was defeated when seeking re-election at Manchester as late as 1906 (I think). It may have been abolished at the time of the Parliament Act, or perhaps during WW1. Adam 04:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot that. Thank for reminding me.

Constitutionally, whether for 4 days or 4 minutes, a peer was prime minister. It was not a mere technicality. Either he was a peer and PM or he wasn't, and he was. Indeed the fact that a peer was appointed caused a considerable shock. He is officially described as being the last peer PM, Salisbury the last PM to run the premiership from the Lords.

Constitutionally the Queen asks one of two questions to someone she is commissioning to form a government:

Can you form a government that can command support in the House of Commons? (the normal request, which allows minority governments, etc), or

Can you form a government that can command majority support in the House of Commons? (the form used in national crises that in effect forces the formation of all-party or coalition governments. The last form was last asked in 1940 off Winston Churchill, forcing him to bring in Labour. It was also asked of MacDonald in Lloyd George, the three times it was used in the 20th century. Convention dating back to the Georges dictates that only an MP or peer can be asked to form a government. A non-parliamentarian being asked would be seen as a form of royal coup d'etat to seize government from parliament. While it is effectively impossible to ask a non-parliamentarian to form a government, by a quirk, a PM can cease to hold a parliamentary seat (as Home demonstated when he quit one house without immediately moving to the other) for some period of time. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 04:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I think it is a technical point, because he was in the process of disclaiming his peerage when he was appointed, and that had been the condition on which his candidacy had emerged, as everyone knew. But I won't argue that point further. The text of the article is technically correct, but I will edit it to make the broader point clear.
• I still say you are wrong in writing that a person who is not a member of either House cannot, as a matter of law, be commissioned as PM. If Home had renounced his peerage a week earlier than he did, are you saying the Queen could not have sent for him? I very much doubt this, firstly because my view is still that the Queen can lawfully send for anyone she pleases, and secondly because it was well-known that he was in the process of becoming an MP and therefore there would have been no breach of convention in sending for him even though he was temporarily not a member of either House. Adam 04:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

She couldn't have asked him to form a government if he wasn't in either house. Saying that he was going to try to get elected didn't mean he would be elected. Apart from anything else, making a candidate PM would be an intervention in an election by giving them a boost electorally. While he was in the Lords she would have no responsibility for that. It would be up to him and his party to act subsquently and she would not have responsibility for their political actions. But she would have responsibility if he was outside parliament and she was boosting his chances of getting in. That would have been an overtly political intervention (helping a Tory candidate get a seat by beating Labour and the Liberals) of the sort she could not, and would not, do. Westminster system heads of state and de facto heads of state act in a minimalist manner. However well meaning, too much of an intervention could drag oneself into political controversies, as Sir John Kerr, the Governor-General of Australia, found to his cost. In theory she can ask anyone to form a government. In practice she cannot. She has to choose someone with a seat in either house. In fact nowadays the issue of choosing a peer is off the agenda entirely so that it is now an MP who will always be asked. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• Those are political arguments, not constitutional ones. I think you have conceded the constitutional point, for which I thank you.
• On the earlier matter, "The Re-Election of Ministers Act 1919 severely restricted the necessity to seek re-election on appointment to government office. The Re-Election of Ministers Act (1919) Amendment Act 1926 ended the practice." (thanks to David Boothroyd). Adam 05:48, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done nothing of the sort, Adam. Countries with unwritten constitutions do not have a clear demarcation. Their conventions are a product of history, tradition, precedent, political realities and constitutional concepts. That constitutional convention on selecting PMs is 100% rock solid. Nobody without a seat in either house can be appointed prime minister. If the Queen tried to do that she'd be out of job in 24 hours. If Home was not a peer he could not have been appointed and would never have been appointed. It was only the fact that he was a member of one of the houses that qualified him for appointment. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 05:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Erm, you yourself wrote: "In theory she can ask anyone to form a government. In practice she cannot." The first sentence concedes the constitutional point (the "theory"). As a matter of law, she can appoint anyone she likes. The second sentence states the political reality that in practice her choice is bound by convention, as I of course acknowledge. Adam 06:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

PS, I would value your comments on Unreformed House of Commons which I finished over the weekend. Adam 06:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I think we have an issue about the differing "importance" of the constitutional conventions... The convention that the Queen asks whom she likes to form a government is a pretty high level one and is unliekly to be broken short of compleate collapse of society. The convention that the Queen only happens to like the leader of the largest party in the Commons (or, more generally, that she only appoints members of parliment) is more recent and seems more "breakable"... Im not sure, for example, what would happen if a PM died a fortnight before the general election? Logic would sugest that the PMs "deputy" (if there was an obvious one) would be appointed as a caretaker, but in this case they wouldnt be an MP at the time... Iain 13:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Little point to make on all this - a PM who's not a Member of Parliament is more common than you realise - it happens during general elections when all MPs cease to hold their seats until they win again (or someone else does instead). The absence of the House of Commons does not affect the functioning of the Government, and the PM and Ministers hold office until the next PM 'kisses the hand' and forms a new administration - even if the PM loses their seat (in practice the new PM is appointed the following day - the Friday. Mauls

There is however a practical difference in two areas:

1. The Prime Minister was in parliament at the point when s/he was appointed;
2. There are no MPs so it isn't as if he is outside the House and others are in.

It is a different issue to appoint someone from outside an existing Parliament.

BTW in theory the Prime Minister does not legally have to be in the Commons and could still be in the Lords. The reason why only MPs become PM is simply because all parties recognise that for their own electoral purposes they have to be led by an elected MP. In theory any member of the cabinet can be in the Lords still. In practice only the Lord Chancellor is; there has not been a peer in cabinet since Lord Carrington resigned in 1982.

One final point re the above: in practice a new PM is not appointed after each election. When Blair won the last general election he did not Kiss Hands (source: Downing St & the Palace for something I was writing at the time). He was only appointed once: in 1997. Ditto with Thatcher, who was only appointed once, in 1979. It is only if the PM resigns that the Queen commissions someone to form a government, and that only happens when (a) they conclude they cannot gain supply having lost the election, or (b) they have lost their seat, in either which case they resign. Heath in 1974 did not immediately resign, and until he did so the Queen could not ask Wilson to Kiss Hands. In theory, as was the practice in the 19th century, he could have stayed on a put a Queen's Speech to parliament, waited to have it voted down and then resign. The tradition of resigning immediately only dates I think from around 1918 when Lloyd George unilaterally assumed the right (now exercised by all PMs) to decide himself to request a parliamentary dissolution. Until 1918 that was a decision of the entire cabinet. (The 1922 constitution in Ireland copied the pre-1918 procedure, with the Governor-General being advised to dissolve by the Executive Council (cabinet). Only in 1937 did Ireland copy the post-1918 British procedure and have the Taoiseach (prime minister) on his own choose when to ask the President of Ireland for a dissolution.) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

The Queen could of course dismiss a PM who didn't resign... but that would also be a move into controversial terrority - c.f. Whitlam in Australia. An important point to remember with constitutional convention is that it isn't legally binding. Although in normal circumstances political considerations prevent it being broken (whether it applies to the Queen, politicians, etc.) there may be circumstances whereby someone thinks they can claim a special case, and try there luck. In those circumstances there isn't much that others can do, other than shout 'not fair'! - the Whitlam situation was partly as a result of ignoring conventions by both the Government and Opposition (e.g. upper house blocking the budget). More recently, and closer to this article - the Lords through out the long-standing convention that they not oppose legislation that the Government backed in the election. The 'excuse' for convention breaking in that case was the the Government had changed the circumstances by removing hereditary peers from the Lords. Mauls

The convention of resigning immediately after a general election rather than waiting to be voted out by the new House goes back well before 1918. Without checking, I'm fairly certain that Beaconsfield resigned at once in 1880. Possibly Gladstone did so in 1874. The custom was then established unless there was genuine uncertainty about the loyalties of the new House (ie in 1923 and Feb 1974). In 1905, of course, Balfour resigned before the election, a precedent that some others should have followed :) Adam 00:23, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now checked. Gladstone resigned immediately after the 1874 election, establishing the precedent which has been followed since. Adam 14:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Just want to pick up on a point made by FearÉIREANN, who said "there has not been a peer in cabinet since Lord Carrington resigned in 1982". Currently Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, is a member of the Cabinet, and is a life peer. Clearly the above statement made was wrong. --Wisden17 23:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Number of seating positions

Parliament (parliament.uk website) lists the number of seats available in the chamber as 427, not 437 as listed here. [1]

Furthermore, the BBC also use this number. [2]

So does Channel 4. [3]

I haven't found a 'respectable' source listing there as being 437 seats - I presume this came from a misprint or typing error somewhere, so am changing it to match the sources referenced.

Mauls 22:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Identical article

I think that there is an identical article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons. for your notice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.228.198.214 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Table

This is an article on the House of Commons, so why does the massive table include Parties who are not represented in the Commons?! Such detail belongs in the article about the general election, not here. I'm afraid to say that the size of the table just made me skip it - not good. --kingboyk 20:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Partitionist body"

With respect to the recent amendment concerning the Sinn Fein explanation, I believe the previous (now current) wording is correct due to the policy previously adopted by the party. They refuse to sit in the Commons because to do so would be to recognise the authority of the Crown in some part of Ireland, this is true. But there is an additional, more subtle, reason, which is that the writ of the UK Parliament only runs in some part of Ireland. It was for the same reason that the party refused to sit in the Dail until its constitution was amended. When it came to contesting the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1998 a similar amendment was made, but the policy still holds for the UK Parliament and the original reasoning stands. --Ross UK 22:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Language

Which words are banned in the Commons? I know that "liar" and "hypocrite" are. —209.98.246.61 23:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I once found a list of "unparliamentarian language" in May's PP, so if you find a copy of it (e.g. in a library) you might want to look it up there. --Mbimmler 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Request

I am requesting for a temporary lock of this article due to indecent vandalism. The images I have seen on this article are rather indecent for youg children. People who do this should be ashamed!

Draig goch20 20:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What images? FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)}

When I came on here last there was serious pornographic images which could offend young children, this is why I am calling for IP Addresses to be band when using wikipedia so only users will be able to edit/Create articles. Certain content put on here is appaling and I do support the users who fight vandalism, but in the case of wikipedia, there are kids in schools reading it and there are young learners looking at this site at home. Am I right in saying that images like I saw on the day I posted my last comments should be seen by young children using wikipedia?

Draig goch20 22:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Centrx's revert

I made legitimate changes to the article. Unfortunately, as I was doing so, idiots were vandalising the article. In trying to undo the vandalism, Fedallah accidentally undid some of the changes I made. That's fine, mistakes are made, and he was gracious enough to apologise for it. So I redid the edits I had made. But now Centrx has taken it upon himself to undo my changes, which are clearly not vandalism. I do not want to get into a revert war here. Please redo the changes - which I made in good faith. Salim555 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

errr, featured article!?!?

There is barely any referencing! What has happened to the featured article standards? They seem to be getting more slack. Brentt 10:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This article has been featured since 2004, hence was presumably featured under a less rigorous system. It also lacks any categorisation, which is odd. I don't know why it's taken so long to get to the Main Page. SteveRwanda 14:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually this came up on Wikipedia talk:Featured article review today. If editors don't raise it to current standards it will probably get delisted. Durova 19:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

'Representation'

The current text suggests that MPs 'represent' their constituencies. My constitutional understanding was that they represent only themselves. Of course they might well wish to 'represent' their consituents' interests (especially if they fancied re-election some day, or if their 'Party' were pressing...) but the reason they are not called 'Representatives' (or 'Deputies') is an interesting formal one. I'd suggest "...effectively represent" to cover the point, except that that carries the implication that they do so 'effectively', which might be going too far.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.150.60 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

While I agree with the comment above, one may not represent oneself. One may only represent others. MPs are sent to Westminster by the electors of a division. While they may not be recalled by those electors, they may submit themselves for re-election when a bye-election or general election is called. That's basically all there is. Electors put their trust in MPs, which MPs are free to honour or betray. Also, a vote for a candidate doesn't imply 100% trust by the elector; and MPs are deemed to be validly elected even if most of their electors did not vote for them and/or voted against them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.206.112.162 (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism

I like poo-waffles? Somebody lock this article. --DerMeister 17:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

History

Should the "History" section not make it clear that much of the first few paragraphs refer to the defunct English House of Commons. With Scottish elements only being introduced in the 17th Century (University seats being introduced to England by James I and a period when Cromwell's parliament had Scottish members) and that it only began started to represent all of the current UK after 1707 and 1801? Benson85 19:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction

>>>>This action, however, was deemed a grave breach of the privilege of Parliament, and has given rise to the tradition that the monarch may not set foot in the House of Commons.

>>>>Each year, the parliamentary session begins with the State Opening of Parliament, a ceremony in the Lords Chamber during which the Sovereign, in the presence of Members of both Houses, delivers an address on the Government's legislative agenda.

These two sentences are next to each other and appear to me to contradict each other. Can someone clarify in the article? Does the monarch not literally set foot in the Commons when the parliamentary session opens? If so, that is not clear to a reader like me. Moncrief 16:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I get it now: she can enter the Lords Chamber but not the H of C. While it is clear upon a close reading, I still say that the juxtaposition of those two sentences can be confusing for some readers. But it may not need to be changed -- just pointing it out. Moncrief 21:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Election Questions

How many potential voters are in the average MP's constituency? Is there a significant variance? Also, how many votes does it usually take for a MP to win election? --Tim4christ17 ^talk 06:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Contempt

There is nothing here regarding Contempt of Parliament, and no article on Wikipedia about Trials at bar. - Matthew238 05:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

evolution

The house is described as having to evolved at such and such a time, but it has surely evolved continuously. Maybe the writer wants to say when the house began or emerged.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.206.112.162 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sword-lengths

This whole sword-length thing seems a bit fishy, and it appears both here and at Canadian House of Commons. To hypothesize based on my understanding of British history: in the era when a Member of the Commons might have actually carried a sword, the Commons would still have been fairly united together, in opposition to the King, or (just maybe) to the Lords. Thus, there would have been little need to protect against attack from the other bench. By the time the party-like distinction began to surface (mid-1700s) I can't seriously see a Member taking a sword into the chamber, if they even owned one at all. (A gun perhaps, but that's another story...) That's not to say that the distance was not given in sword-lengths, just that the reason given doesn't make much sense. --Xyzzyva 06:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

• I visited the House of Commons once before. The tour guide there told me the same story.--219.78.17.149 09:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Gentlemen wore swords in the eighteenth century; and you forget the "right honourable and gallant" military members. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Current composition.

Per the BBC [4], a Conservative member, Quentin Davies, has crossed the floor to Labour. I'm about to edit the page to reflect this. Catwhoorg 14:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony now has acknowledged that he will be quitting as an MP. Anyone got a Reliable source as for when this is effective ? Catwhoorg 18:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bar of the House

Can anyone add any information about the Bar of the House? I believe that if you speak from "within" the bar, you cannot be prosecuted for slander or suffer the consequences of lying. But if you speak from outside the bar, at the end of the chamber, you could very well be. Richardbooth 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Pay and Expenses

shouldn't something be included on pay and expenses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.87 (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

A bit of questionable etymology in the main House of Commons article as well as Canadian House of Commons has gone uncited for a few months. See the talk pages for those articles. Perhaps someone who watches this article can shed some light on the question? PubliusFL (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am finding it a little difficult to track down a definitive source, but as I understand it the name "Commons" derives from the Norman French "Communes". There is still some evidence for this today in the use of antiquated Norman French in some formal duties of the Parliament (such as use of the phrases Soit baillé aux Communes and A ceste Bille les Communes sont assentus).[5] However I do not feel that this evidence is strong enough for a reliable etymology. I will see what else I can dig out in the next few days. Road Wizard (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

John Lewis List

I had a look at the above article, and it seems to be 'orphaned'. Can someone with more time/expertise than me figure out an appropriate way to link to it from this page please?80.41.230.202 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved Sceptre ^(talk) 16:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

A few months ago, this article was moved from British House of Commons to House of Commons of the United Kingdom. Frankly, unless we're going to split the article up (which I see little reason to do) the present name is a bit of a howler. Clearly, House of Commons needs to be qualified, as there have been several others, but this article (rightly, it seems to me) covers the whole history of the Westminster House of Commons as a unified whole, and most of that history was during the periods of the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Great Britain, long before there was a United Kingdom. The greatest unifying strand I see through nearly seven hundred years is that the seat of the House has stayed at Westminster, even if it has sometimes met elsewhere. My suggestion is a move to House of Commons (Westminster) House of Commons, Westminster, but of course we need an open discussion on any possible names. Xn4 (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• It should probably be moved back to British House of Commons for now; there was consensus against moving it when it was discussed. But that is a proceedural point.
• I don't see much wrong with House of Commons of the United Kingdom; that is what it now is, and things which have changed name through time, like Princeton University or Istanbul, usually have a main article under their present name.
• I do dislike parenthetical disambiguation when it can be avoided. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with most of the above, and I should certainly prefer British House of Commons to the present name, but if it's agreed that that would be better than House of Commons of the United Kingdom, I wonder how other users feel about House of Commons, Westminster? That avoids Septentrionalis's objection to parentheses, has the advantage of being a name actually in use, and also doesn't jar with the long medieval, Tudor and Stuart periods. Xn4 (talk) 16:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I would see it left at House of Commons of the United Kingdom. British House of Commons excludes Northern Ireland, whilst both of these names are intended to fall under the Istanbul logic outlined above - rst20xx (talk) 01:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. "House of Commons, Westminster" makes it sound like a geographical rather than a political entity, and will reinforce the erroneous idea that the Palace of Westminster _is_ "The Houses of Parliament", rather than the building in which they meet. The current title may be anachronistic, but it's not actively inaccurate. If the move is supported, I would prefer the original suggestion (House of Commons (Westminster)), or possibly Westminster House of Commons, rather than the form with the comma. 78.105.161.182 (talk) 21:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

New file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:House of Lords and House of Commons during King Charles I's reign, circa 1640-1642 from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Post-1941

The article mentions the "Post-1941 chamber" being used in two films and mentioned in a Robin Williams stand-up sketch. I presume this means a real chamber located in a building somewhere that was used by the Commons post-1941 (until 1950?) because of the London Blitz, but the article mentions nothing about this. And why was this chamber in particular, rather than the actual one, referred to in the stand-up sketch (or was it a photo of it)?--86.142.75.240 (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Old Sarum

I see two conflicting numbers for the number of voters in Old Sarum in this article it says:

The most notorious of these "rotten boroughs" were Old Sarum, which had only six voters for two MPs

While on the Old Sarum article it says:

In 1831 it had eleven voters, all of whom were landowners who lived elsewhere.

So, which is right? Youknowyouloveit (talk) 16:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Colour

Why is the infobox coloured green? Shouldn't it be a British colour? 24.11.127.26 (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Because the colour traditionally associated with the House is green, hence benches are green, covers of hansard green etc. The Lords incidentally are associated with the colur red. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting at 1707

Ground Zero and I have been thinking that it would be a good idea to have a separate article for the pre-1707 House of Commons. As Ground Zero points out, we have a series of articles for the Parliament of England, Parliament of Great Britain and Parliament of the United Kingdom. I have also commented that the title of this article (which is fine from 1707 onwards) can be misleading when linked to articles which are to do with the Parliament of England and its members. Sooner or later, this article will become too large for a single page, in any event. Moonraker2 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. I think we need three articles:
  • House of Commons of England (pre-1707),
  • House of Commons of Great Britain (1707-18018), and
  • House of Commons of the United Kingdom (post-18018). Ground Zero | t 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why 1808 and not 1801? Road Wizard (talk) 20:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you're right. Sorry. Ground Zero | t 20:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections if you don't mind doing the work, but out of curiosity why split at 1801 (addition of Ireland) and avoid splitting at 1922 (formation of the Irish Free State)? Road Wizard (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Naming convention: both before and after, the House of Commons would be the "House of Commons of the United Kingdom", and because it would follow the model of the Parliament articles. Moonraker2 has offered to help, and any further assistance in fixing the links would be appreciated. Ground Zero | t 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy to help with the work, including directing links from other articles, which would take some time. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Split completed

We now have new articles for:

• House of Commons of England (pre-1707),
• House of Commons of Great Britain (1707-1801).

Both articles need some cleaning up, and particularly the second one need expansion. Also, help would be greatly appreciated in checking the links to House of Commons of the United Kingdom to change them where appropriate to direct the reader tot he correct article. Thanks. Ground Zero | t 19:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Good split BritishWatcher (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good split. I'll see what I can do to help, and I'll also do some work on the links today. Moonraker2 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed quite a few of the problem links. Interesting how splitting this article showed up how little we had on House of Commons of Great Britain. I've done some work on that, but it's only a beginning. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your changes are a big improvement. Thanks and keep up the great work! Ground Zero | t 01:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

number of MPs

The article says there are 650 MPs but if you add up the numbers for England (529), Wales (40), Scotland (59) and Northern Ireland (18) you get only 646 MPs . So, are there only 646 or where do the other 4 MPs come from? Martinwilke1980 (talk) 08:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

There were 646 for the previous parliament, its been increased as of the election. - Chrism would like to hear from you 10:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seating diagrams from Commons

divided areas and without legend

Please note I have uploaded this latest version of the seating diagram File:Election2010Parliament.png to Commons as File:Election2010Parliament divided.png. This earlier version with more space between the main parties was already uploaded as Commons:File:Election2010Parliament.png. No change should be evident on the article page.

I did this to provide a choice of versions to other Wikimedia projects. See Commons:United Kingdom general election, 2010.

I also feel it would be useful to have yet more versions, but each one with its own file name to avoid confusion and unnecessary reverting, and also preferably on Commons. -84user (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't be producing such diagrams until we know what the government will look like. This version implies a Con-Lib coalition; some of the others imply a Con minority government. Plus, it should be SVG rather than PNG. Wereon (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Back in 2005, a diagram was created immediately, although it was only a placeholder diagram. I decided that as all of the votes are in, apart from Thirsk and Malton, that a diagram, similar to those of previous elections could then be used. The original, that I created, demonstrated things in the more traditional way. was the original. I was wandering on opinion, over which is more appropriate. The traditional, House of Commons layout or the box method of Anthony717. It is only a png for now, but I am in the process of making a parliament style layout in svg - it is very tedious. 95jb14 Talk, Founder of WikiProject Latin. 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC).

How do you feel in replacing the existing diagram with this one? 14:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dove (talk • contribs)

The House of Commons doesn't sit in an amphitheatre; they sit in a linear chamber with the government on one side and the opposition on the other. As such it makes no sense to set them out in a semicircular diagram. Happy‑melon 10:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I know the Commons isn't a semi-circle. But this is a very attractive diagram and useful like a pie-chart. And it's not that intrusive. (My two cents anyway) Iota (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Technical question about parliament

I wonder can someone knowledgeable clear something up for me? The House of Commons that was just elected has met and chosen the Speaker on 18 May, members began being sworn in on 19 May and today, on 25 May, is the State Opening of Parliament.

• So on what date was parliament reconvened: the 18th or the 25th?
• And how can the Commons have elected a Speaker when its members had no yet taken the Oath of Allegiance and therefore hadn't taken up their seats?

Iota (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

(1) 18th (2) The law allows for members to elect a speaker before taking the Oath. This is the only business they may consider before doing so. - Chrism would like to hear from you 15:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Crowned Portcullis.svg

The image File:Crowned Portcullis.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Vacant Seats

A vacant seat should be added for Inverclyde until the by-election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.204.141 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Property requirements

Since when have there been no more property requirements? And since when have all women been allowed to vote? --Chricho ∀ (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean property requirements to vote, or property requirements to be an MP? As for women, they were placed on an equal footing with men by the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928. Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC).

For voting, but requirements to be an MP would be interesting, too. When talking about the progress it seems to be important to mention this date. --Chricho ∀ (talk) 12:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Title - "the Honourable Commons .. assembled"

This edit restored a recently removed claim about what the full title of the place is. However, the reference being relied on for this is a guide to petitions, which simply says that lengthy construction is the form of address to be used when petitioning (and the "traditional" one at that, with a modern alternative given). That's not the same thing as full title, although a similar construction (without "the Honourable") does seem to be also used when the House addresses the queen. I know this is a little pedantic, but we are in the realm of the arcane and it should be correct one way or the other. Without a source that explicitly asserts this is the correct, formal title of the institution, I'm not sure we should be asserting that it is. N-HH talk/edits 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And now we have someone reverting it back in again, while ignoring this talk page section, and marking their edit as "minor". Please address the issue and the problem - a formal, archaic reference and mode of address is not the same thing as a formal title or name. And one or two cited apparent examples of use of said mode of address is not evidence of anything. N-HH talk/edits 09:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Although it should not be up to me to "disprove" the status of this phrase, I have done some more digging around. It does not appear to be used other than in the context of petitions to the Commons - a minor aspect of the House's business and one where it is, as noted, in any event only one alternative form of address. It is not used at all by MPs, in the chamber, in bills, rulebooks or other official documents, or on parliament's website - outside the context of petitions - when referring to or describing the House of Commons. It is not noted as a formal, official name in any academic history or study of Parliament, at least any available through Google Books. To the extent that it appears on one or two random websites, it is likely that people have picked up on it because of its prominence on this very page - all the more reason that we get it right. If someone can present serious evidence for the phrase, fine. Without that, it really should not be this complicated. It's ridiculous that this has seen one party edit-warring without clear evidence or engagement and at the same time the need for another, ie me, to have to offer this kind of one-sided (p)rebuttal posting on a talk-page. N-HH talk/edits 11:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Military coup

"Pride's Purge was indeed the only military coup in English history." This needs a citation with the expert making the claim in the text, because it can be argued that there have been at least two others:

• Oliver Cromwell's clearance of the Rump Parliament on 20 April 1653 was also a military coup.
• On 13 October 1659 the New Model Army in London under the command of John Lambert excluded the Rump from Parliament by locking the doors to the Palace of Westminster and stationing armed guards outside (see Rump Parliament#End of the Rump Parliament).

Both of these events involved the forcible closure of a Parliament by soldiers, with soldiers appointing an alternative government. --PBS (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I feel like the lack of a picture of the door is a glaring oversight in this article. Take a page out of the Australian article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:House_of_Reps_Doorway.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.161.141 (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Move from "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" to "House of Commons (United Kingdom)"

I propose to revert this move from two reasons:

1. The name of this prominent article has been discussed on several occasions, and on the last one, the "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" was selected by those involved in the discussion. This move was undertaken with no discussion, and with no explanation provided. It appears to be the personal preference of one user over that of the community.
2. "House of Commons of the United Kingdom" is a phrase that can be correctly linked in an article without piping. The link "House of Commons (United Kingdom)" will always have to be piped to avoid awkward sentence structure.

Ground Zero | t 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I think I prefer the new title as it's the more usual actual name but with the parenthetical note to distinguish it from others (there's a wider debate about primary topic and possibly some wider tidying up needed - currently we have the generic House of Commons page, as well as a disambiguation page, which may not be the best way to deal with this. The only two real contenders for primary topic are this page and the modern Canadian Commons, surely). That said, the points above are fair, plus the user who moved it seems to be sweeping through hundreds of parliament/assembly pages making moves without any proposals or discussion. I'd be fine with reverting in the absence of agreement. N-HH talk/edits 16:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Expenses scandal

I don't think this minutia has any place in this article. It was really just a relatively minor thing blow up by the media. There are no other "scandals" or similar events in the article. The scandal entry was added right in the middle of it happening. It seems to have little merit in the article today. I propose that it is removed. Alternatively, I propose that every semi-significant scandal of the last 100 years be added.

Adamathefrog (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that the issue as a whole was blown up by the media (or "extensively covered" if one prefers that formulation) counts for something in itself. There's only the briefest mention at the moment, in the history section, which to me seems to be worth retaining and even to be, if anything, a little perfunctory – even regardless of any media hype, it is part of the recorded history of the place after all and was seen to reflect on the institution. What I find more undue is the tendency there has been to add trivial details of their personal expenses claims to several individual MP pages, even those who were not found to have done anything properly wrong, eg here – where there's even a dedicated sub-section for his purchase of light bulbs – and here. N-HH talk/edits 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

The word communes

• Although popularly considered to refer to the fact its members are "commoners", the actual name of the House of Commons comes from the fact it represented communities (communes).

There should (possibly) be a link for the word communes, but not communes, because that links to sth. like “most communes of the '90s are not free-love refuges for flower children”. Better communes (municipality). --129.69.140.138 (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Country by Country breakdown Missing relevant image

What this article should also have is a visual breakdown of how many MPs currently represent England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland (with a different colour for each). Can someone do this, please? -MacRùsgail (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Clacton/UKIP

If Carswell has resigned as an MP, UKIP shouldn't be listed as having a seat. It should be listed as vacant until the by-election occurs. RobDR (talk) 19:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Current seating plan

The current seating plan is a fine one but it isn't symetrical (it is difficult to visualise the difference between both sides when it is chopped off on the bottom right). I've tried many times to render it symetrically and this is my latest attempt. Here they are side by side:

 

I can easily conver the rounded squares to the square format as is currently used. Ive added the same to the house of lords talk page.

Any comments? Shabidoo Shabidoo | Talk 03:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The new one makes it less apparent that the government majority exists, as there's only one lines difference between the two, so they appear to look almost the same size. To that extent, I think it's less visually useful and slightly deceptive for readers. To that extent, I prefer the old one, though I actually do like the rounded squares. - Chrism would like to hear from you 16:59, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Actually a user who critiqued my image on the commons file also mentioned something similar though she noted that with the crossbench huddled together it makes the opposition look too large. I'm not sure now if squares or circles are better. I'll make a mock-up with the crossbench on the right side and see what you think Shabidoo | Talk 05:25, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Parties with equal representation

I think we should make it clear which order we should organise parties that have equal numbers of seats in the House of Commons. I would suggest that as they have more overall national support and interest the Liberal Democrats come before the DUP, Plaid Cymru comes before the SDLP, and UKIP comes before the Greens. JackWilfred (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Seat Diagram

Why does it keep changing? I much prefer 'File:House of Commons current.svg' due to continuity and I personally think it is clearest/most distinguishable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakatbroughshane (talk • contribs) 15:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Verification

Huge chunks of this article are uncited. I have added a refimprove tag. Only 16 references is very few. Myrvin (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Length of terms

The article states that a governments term cannot last longer than 5 years. Im sure my politics lecturer said that there is in fact no limit to how long a government may last considering the lack of a written constitution. Governments do generally dissolve after 5 years due to tradition dictating so and public pressure if a government was to last too long, but that there is in fact on written legislation which forces the government to end after 5 years and states that it would be illegal if it continued past 5 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.238.141 (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It is 5 years Under the Septennial Act 1715, as amended by Section 7 of the Parliament Act 1911, five years is fixed as the maximum duration for a Parliament http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/notes/snpc-02923.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.2.123 (talk) 22:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

While both statements are actually true, Her Majesty however would more than likely prevent a law giving a 'long term' government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhinomatt (talk • contribs) 01:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This article states "an early general election can be brought about only by ... a two-thirds majority in favour of a motion for a dissolution". However, the article on the Fixed-Term Parliament Act implies that only a simple majority vote is needed for dissolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.119.253.2 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Compagnie

Mr. Burke,

I feel you should concede to the popular.

I feel you are not of the standing.

Kind,

THE ASG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.225.192.109 (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Blacked-out seating chart?

Why is the seating chart blacked out? Wouldn't the article be more helpful if it displayed the party standings prior to the election. and then be replaced by a chart showing the standings after tomorrow's election? Circumspect (talk) 10:40, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

427 seats

An oft quoted number of the physical seats in the chamber is said to be 427. Does anyone know where this number originates? This transcript, by Sir Robert Rogers, then Clerk of the House of Commons and Chief Executive, casts doubt on that number. Specifically: "it’s got be an average or a finger in the wind estimate..." . I am very aware that the number of physical seats is far less than the number of MPs, but remain sceptical that such a specific figure can be given. I am happy to be proven wrong! Greg (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Numbers only add up to 649 MPs

Not sure why - should there be another independent - there is only 649 seats counted for the current makeup. London prophet (talk) 17:30, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Are you including Speaker in your count? I missed him first time checking. OZOO (t) (c) 17:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Changing the seating plan

I'm sure it would be well received if we just agreed on a layout for the seating plan rather than changing it all the time Qaei ☎ 21:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• 
  1. UK House of Commons 2017 2018-12-19.svg
• 
  2. House-of-Commons.svg
• 
  3. House of Commons current.svg

Agreed, here are the three diagrams I've seen used so far, with the first one being my own. I take an extreme dislike to option 2 as it isn't a vector, and my disagreements with 3 is its omission of Sinn Fein and the implication that there is a 'crossbench' that the DUP sit on, when the DUP sit on the Speaker's left with the Opposition. I have attempted to make the diagram as clear as possible, seperating the official opposition, other opposition parties and the confidence and supply party, and making Sinn Fein white with a dark green border to differentiate from Plaid Cymru and signify its abstention, rather than omit them completely. JackWilfred (talk) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Updated as 2 has been updated into svg form. I personally disagree with Lady Hermon being identified as an independent unionist. She is listed as an independent everywhere else, with Claire Sugden, her closest equivalent on the Northern Irish Assembly, also listed as an independent. JackWilfred (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that it would make it much clearer to list her as an 'Independent Unionist' as it will distinguish her from those MPs who over the course of the Parliament may lose their affiliation with a party and thus become an 'Independent' such as Douglas Carswell in the last parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theowrig (talk • contribs) 18:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

But the same happened in the 2011-16 session of the Northern Irish Assembly. Members became independents and were classed together. JackWilfred (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have created a new version of the diagram which I believe is a suitable compromise to the various disputes. The official opposition and the other opposition parties have been put together into one group. Lady Hermon will remain designated as an independent unionist, but with a less bright template colour. The DUP will be moved to the Speaker's left to represent where they sit in the Commons, but will be put seperate from the opposition parties to represent their status. I've put it under the name 'UK House of Commons 2017 2018-12-19.svg' as I believe that is more descriptive. JackWilfred (talk) 19:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that is a suitable compromise in terms of the diagram, I feel that will make it clearer. However the colour change now means that the colour for an 'Independent Unionist' is different just on this page, and so does not match the page for the North Down constituency and others. Theowrig (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a template, it will update on those pages soon. JackWilfred (talk) 20:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I believe the precedent for election results is to use the description on the ballot paper, though; see Richmond Park by-election, 2016, where Goldsmith was blatantly running as an Independent Conservative (and, indeed, won last week under the Tory banner), but we went with Independent because that's what the ballot paper said. Sceptre (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, unfortunately I think that we're going to have to change back all the 'Independent Unionist' mentions in Wikipedia to just 'Independent'. The designation 'Unionist' is used for specific purposes in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and does not exist in an official capacity at Westminster. While it may be a clearer description, we at Wikipedia have no mandate to change it from anything other than 'Independent'. RedvBlue 23:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

October 2017 changes

Hey all, I just wanted to get a bit more feedback on the minor changes I made to the diagram:

• I've moved the Deputy Speakers to the Speaker's column, as they invariably do not sit on either bench upon election and only ever sit in the chair.
• I've moved O'Mara and Morris to their prior groupings and shaded them in the "Independent Labour/Conservative" colours; typically, MPs who have had the whip withdrawn, as opposed to have left the party, still continue to sit with their former parliamentary party.
• I've also changed the colour of the Lords Spiritual in House of Lords to ecclesiastical purple. Sceptre (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed this late, but I've decided to change it back to the simpler version we've been working with earlier.

I don't think Conservatives and Labour MPs with the whip withdrawn should be classed as anything other than 'Independent', as that's what they are according to the UK Parliament website. The whole idea of withdrawing the whip is that they're kicked out of the party group, and hence the Government or Official Opposition.

I also have moved the Deputy Speakers back to where they were. I don't feel as strongly about this, but I feel the diagram should be a simple head count, not a perfectly accurate diagram of how the Commons works. JackWilfred (talk) 14:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Public galleries

Where are they and how large? This source gives some information. I think they should be mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The Independent Group... Again

The seating diagram is already out of date, the diagram shows 7 MPs when there are now 11. This should be fixed. Finley jones (talk) 12:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

As I've noted beneath the diagram, this is an ongoing and fast-moving situation, so might not always be bang up-to-date. We are not a rolling news site. DBD 12:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Majority?

If Conservatives hav 314 and DUP 10 governement has 324 seats, but 324 isn't a majority if 650 is the total. What does this mean for May? --134.176.64.134 (talk) 07:57, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

There has always been a minority government in this term of parliament since the DUP is not part of a coalition. We have to figure out a way to deal with this because 324 is not a majority of parliament, but it is a majority out of 643 when excluding the seven abstentionist Sinn Fein members. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

The Independent Group

The Labour breakaway group 'The Independent Group' are now listed as independent MPs - should there be some kind of separation from them in the diagram of the commons? VelvetCommuter (talk) 12:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree, should be listed as "The Independent Group" rather than Independent. Ethanmayersweet While I appreciate comments of 2601:44:80:8332:549f:d965:2258:8c51 that they are not a de-jure party as of yet, they are a de-facto party. —Preceding undated comment added 20:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

For those given to removing TIG from the infobox "because they are not a party": you are correct they aren't a party, but if you read the infobox, what we are listing there is groupings not parties, and TIG is certainly a grouping. DBD 21:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree/Not Sure, unless political "grouping" of independents is actually a practice used by Parliament/House of Commons? The House of Commons website lists them all as Independent MPs and makes no distinction as to them being a separate group. and states: "If an MP is not a member of a political party, they are known as an 'Independent'." --94.173.248.64 (talk) 01:01, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe have something like:

• Independent (19)
  • The Independent Group (11)
  • Non-affiliated (8)

Similar to how Bundestag handles the CDU/CSU Union. --eduardog3000 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The Independent Group aren't in a coalition with the independents. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's not exactly the same, just similar formatting to show that they are considered Independents by the House of Commons. Just an idea. --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

TIG is yet only a company rather than a party because it wants MPs to join without quitting their party - I heard that from perhaps a YouTube video but I'm sorry that I couldn't find that anymore... Anyway the BBC says "As it stands, if they were to run in a by-election (or any general election) the name the Independent Group wouldn't appear on the ballot paper because they're not registered as a political party." The Sun says "It is not yet a political party, and the 11 MPs will sit in the Commons as independents." Plus, in the UK Parliament website and parliamentlive.tv MPs from the TIG are categorized as Independent rather than TIG. Therefore I firmly believe that TIG should not be split out from Independent in the diagram. NYKTNE (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

That would not be helpful to the readers of the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:51, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I believe the aforementioned proposition (splitting TIG and Non-affiliated under Independent) would be the best option to strike a balance between fact and being "easy-to-read". NYKTNE (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Change UK in main infobox

Since Change UK doesn't actually exist as a registered political party yet, and since the Independent Group still refer to themselves as the Independent Group, surely the infobox should say The Independent Group instead of Change UK? Younotmenotyou (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I've now made this change. Younotmenotyou (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Seating plan in coalition?

The article says that the Government sits on one side and the Opposition on the other. When there's a coalition, do all of its constituent parties sit on the same side? 79.66.201.55 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes! See List of MPs elected in the 2010 United Kingdom general election. Thunderstorm008 (talk · contributions) 18:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Alternative diagram

Hi - posting here for comment a subtly changed HoC diagram. There is some explanation on the Commons file, but the basic aim is to add clarity. – FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 22:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Are we able to put the DUP and Sinn Fein next to the other opposition parties with no gaps? I dont recall seeing any gaps on other diagrams of chambers where a confidence and supply agreement is in place – User:Zorokai 23:51, 29 June 2019 (BST)

I think there is good reason to separate them, and the consensus among editors that the DUP be separated was established fairly early on in this parliament. I recently separated Sinn Féin and am open to argument on that.

The diagram provides a visual guide to the relative numerical strengths of the government and opposition. The Speaker is separated on the basis of his distinct role/behaviour, and I would argue that an opposition group propping up the government and another not voting at all both behave sufficiently distinctly to merit being split off from the main opposition. (I'd also suggest the Deputy Speakers be shown alongside the Speaker, since they don't even vote in confidence motions, but next to and in the colour of their parties.) With this arrangement, it's easier to see the balance of power. FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 22:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Birkenhead Social Justice

Should the Birkenhead Social Justice Party be listed? As far as I can tell it hasn't been registered with the Electoral Commission. --AnswerMeNow1 (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"Commons"

In the article there is said: "Although popularly considered to refer to the fact its members are commoners, the actual name of the House of Commons comes from the Norman French word for communities – communes." The reference for that is A. F. Pollard's The Evolution of Parliament ("Not that the house of commons was ever that house of the common people which it is sometimes supposed to have been. For " commons " means " communes " ; and while " communes " have commonly been popular organizations, the term might in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries be applied to any association or confederacy." – To add would be the text on p. 108: "... the communes or communitates were simply the shires or counties of England ...".

But the Oxford English Dictionary gives an other explanation (vol. III, p. 572): "Commons, sb. pl. ... I. Common people; community. 1. a. The common people, the commonalty; the lower order, as distinguished from those of noble or knigthly or gentle rank ... b. The burghers of a town; the body of free citizens, bearing common burdens, and exercising common rights ... 2. a. The third estate in the English (or other similar) constitution; the body of people, not ennobled, and represented by the Lower House of Parliament ... b. Hence, the representatives of the third estate in Parliament; the Lower House ..." Everyone of these meanings is proved by quotations from the Middle Ages. Personally I clearly prefere the explanation of the Oxford English Dictionary, and I think, Pollard's interpretation is not right. At least there should be mentioned both explanations. Regards, --Freigut (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

parliamentary order paper

Dear friends, the past months have amply highlighted the importance of the parliamentary order paper in shaping HoC functioning. Surprisingly, it is only mentioned very briefly. I am not in a position to improve the article here unfortunately. All the best, --Trinitrix (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

"British House iof Commons" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect British House iof Commons. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Surtsicna (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Neale Hanvey

According to Parliament the SNP have 47 MPs, and Neale Hanvey is an independent. I suggest @Colex335: stops changing the figure to 48 with misleading edit summaries. FDW777 (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Diagram

Hi folks, I've replaced the diagram with one with the right number of Labour MPs, a description, and the same design rules from last time, to be updated with any changes using the instructions here. In principle I'm not against putting Sinn Fein (and maybe vacancies, suspensions and Deputy Speakers?) back and centre, so shout if you like that idea from Keramu-kun — FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 23:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Was: Now:

The number of Labour MPs was right after all - 202. Labour was widely reported as having won 203 seats, e.g. in the FT and ITV but they counted the Speaker. THE SPEAKER. FLYING CHRYSALIS ^💬 23:50, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Labour coop mps

Just a suggestion, Labour Co-Op MPs are listed in the seat alignment and numbers as just Labour MPs and in my opinion this is misleading. (Airline7375 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2020 (UTC))

I’ve got to agree. Honestly I had no clue about co-op mps or what they were until visiting this page and seeing that not all of the members are strictly labour mps due to the party color boxes. I think it should be displayed how the Union is displayed on the Bundestag page, with it displaying the composition of thereof. Fluffy89502 (talk) 22:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Independents

Same as #Neale Hanvey above, Parliament itself says 4 independents. I repeat my suggestion that @Colex335: stops changing the figure with misleading edit summaries. FDW777 (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Floor Plan

I noticed that the "House of Lords" page includes a floor plan, however, the "House of Commons" does not. 50.32.152.49 (talk) 21:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Honorofics

I suggest new editors read MOS:SIR and MOS:HONOR. FDW777 (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we remember this is the page for the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. There is a reason we include honorifics in this article, Honorifics are so intrinsic to the spirit of the commons it makes no sense to omit them here. When people are called out on the floor of the commons their names are given with full honorifics. When the media talks about the members of parliament they talk about them with full honorifics. In many other articles it makes sense to exclude Honorifics, but not in the article for the House of Commons of the United KINGDOM. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

We aren't the media, or the House of Commons, and we have our own manual of style that deprecates honorifics. FDW777 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Party numbers

Currently, the breakdown of seats by party in the infobox lists four "Speaker and Deputies". This means that the three Deputy Speakers (2 Labour, 1 Conservative) need to not be counted in the party totals, and that the Conservative and Labour numbers will differ from those at [6]. It periodically happens that either the numbers or the diagram are updated without taking this into account, so that three MPs get counted twice and the total number of seats doesn't add up to 650. Might it be less confusing and less conducive to errors if we simply included the deputies in their respective party totals, as on the parliament.uk list, rather than grouping them together with the Speaker and having to adjust the numbers to compensate? Alkari (?), 13 October 2014, 22:31 UTC

As Charlie Elphicke (MP for Dover, CON), has had the whip suspended once again, he has become and independent (non party mp)[7], the C+S total needs to be changed again(!). As we dont count the speaker or his deputies or Sinn Fein in the voting total of 320 mps, by my reckoning the government majority has reduced to 0.

Some potentially dodgy maths:

AS OF 22/07/2019

HM GOVERNMENT

CON 310 (not including 1 deputy speaker)

DUP 10

TOTAL 320

HM OPPOSITION

LAB 245 (not including 2 deputy speakers)

SNP 35

LIB DEM 12

SINN FEIN 7 (not included in total)

TIGFC 5

TINDS 5

PLAID CYMRU 4

GREEN 1

INDEPENDENT 11

TOTAL 320

1 VACANT SEAT (formerly conservative)

Numbers taken from [8] if anyone could just double check these numbers before changing anything that would be helpful. Zorokai (?), 22nd July 2019 19:50 BST

Titles

I suggest that MPs should have their name titled, Exp. (Rt. Hon. Sir. Lindsay Hoyle.) (NAMO)