Jump to content

Talk:2014 Rochester and Strood by-election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 44: Line 44:


Mabelina, you say 'let's not war'. Good idea. Come here. Let's all sit down with a cup of [[puer tea]] and discuss what's the matter. It's obvious that you're keen to contribute to the encyclopaedia and make it better for everyone. [[User:Senotshtooms|Senotshtooms]] ([[User talk:Senotshtooms|talk]]) 07:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Mabelina, you say 'let's not war'. Good idea. Come here. Let's all sit down with a cup of [[puer tea]] and discuss what's the matter. It's obvious that you're keen to contribute to the encyclopaedia and make it better for everyone. [[User:Senotshtooms|Senotshtooms]] ([[User talk:Senotshtooms|talk]]) 07:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
:I agree with [[User:Frinton100|Frinton100]]: constituency details are covered in the constituency article. There is no point covering them in the lede of this article. If there is some particular reason why one of these villages is significant, that can be covered -- with a reliable source citation -- in the campaign section. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


== Candidate accused of hypocrisy by satirical newspaper ==
== Candidate accused of hypocrisy by satirical newspaper ==

Revision as of 13:46, 7 November 2014

WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom Start‑class Low‑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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconKent Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England 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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Kent tasks:

Here are some Kent related tasks you can do:

Note: These articles may overlap with those on other related lists. If you would like to make a change, either do so yourself, or make a suggestion.

WikiProject iconElections and Referendums Start‑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.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Medway news poll

http://www.maidstoneandmedwaynews.co.uk/Rochester-Strood-election-Lib-Dems-choose/story-23046428-detail/story.html

This article says that it had taken a larger poll than the Survation one and found UKIP on over 75%. Should this go in the polling box? '''tAD''' (talk) 00:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like an unscientific voodoo poll. The Survation poll's respondents would be weighted to reflect the electorate. This newspaper poll sounds like an open access poll on its website and therefore unreliable.--Britannicus (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 06:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jools Holland?

Is it really relevant that Jools Holland lives in R&S, and who is wife is? Perhaps I'm missing something.Frinton100 (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Britain First

Now I don't think there's anything wrong with patriotism or supporting your own country but this party violently enters places of religious worship to disturb prayer. Britain First is a violent party. I don't think it would be breaking the NPOV policy to point out that Britain first eagerly supports violence. I wouldn't say that the evidence against them is some kind of stitch up either. They can clearly be seen on video storming into places of religious worship.

Here are some links to support my claims:

http://www.channel4.com/news/britain-first-far-right-anti-muslim-extremists-mosques http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-kent-29858335 http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/hate-groups/bf/ http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.com/2014/06/12-things-britain-first.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/09/21/britain-first-_n_5857250.html http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/05/first-tackling-menace-far-right--20145261213161811.html

Such a violent political party doesn't deserve to be described as anything other than violent. I deplore such violence. So I admit my bias here against this cretinous party. But I don't think that the matter should be left there. Consensus?

Senotshtooms (talk) 09:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Details about Britain First and their actions should go in the Britain First article; I haven't checked that article, but I hope it covers such behaviour. I would suggest material should only be included in this article if it is directly about this by-election. Bondegezou (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about keeping the material relevant to this by-election. It would be worrying for users to come here and not realise that what they were seeing was in fact a political party that supports violent methods. To be honest, I'm not sure as to what type of source would be acceptable to Wikipedia for proving that Britain First is a thuggish/uncivilised political party. It's beyond my ability and I don't want to start an edit war so I'll just hold back here, despite my own personal feelings on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senotshtooms (talkcontribs) 15:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Senotshtooms: I agree with Bondegezou, plus I would point out that the issue about Royal Mail's non-delivery of their literature appears in the article - this is of course completely relevant to the election. Frinton100 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency profile

We seem to have a bit of disagreement over the inclusion of some of the detail in the intro section. Personally I think we should just keep it brief and leave it as "The constituency comprises a mix of the ancient city of Rochester and parts of the commuter-belt conurbation of Medway as well as rural areas."

As has already been pointed out, all of the detail of the constituency is included in the constituency article - Rochester and Strood (UK Parliament constituency). This article is about an election, so really I think it should be kept to details of the candidates, campaign, polling and eventually results and aftermath.

The article does include a map at the top of the page. Anyone who is unable to locate the constituency using the map is unlikely to be able to do so with a few village names added in the intro.Frinton100 (talk) 02:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina, you say 'let's not war'. Good idea. Come here. Let's all sit down with a cup of puer tea and discuss what's the matter. It's obvious that you're keen to contribute to the encyclopaedia and make it better for everyone. Senotshtooms (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Frinton100: constituency details are covered in the constituency article. There is no point covering them in the lede of this article. If there is some particular reason why one of these villages is significant, that can be covered -- with a reliable source citation -- in the campaign section. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate accused of hypocrisy by satirical newspaper

Funny? No. Relevant? Yes.

From Private Eye:

"How Mr Very Reckless changed his tune Rochester and Strood, Issue 1378

BIRD BRAINS: A nightingale and Ukip candidate Mark Reckless A KEY issue in November’s Rochester and Strood by-election – the plan to build 5,000 homes on Ministry of Defence land – has certainly given Ukip’s Mark Reckless plenty to sing about.

Reckless alleged that there had been a “Tory stitch-up on Lodge Hill” after Conservative-controlled Medway council approved plans for what he called a new town “in the middle of a bird sanctuary”.

Lodge Hill is a site of special scientific interest (SSSI) and home to Britain’s largest colony of nightingales. These will be relocated to Essex under plans by developer Land Securities. “If that goes ahead, where will it stop?” Reckless asked in his dramatic post-defection speech to the recent Ukip conference. “I promised to protect our rural Hoo Peninsula. I cannot keep that promise as a Conservative. I can keep it as Ukip.”

Champion of the nightingale The SSSI was only declared by Natural England in March 2013 and came as a blow to what the council sees as one of the key regeneration projects in Medway. At the time the local Conservative MP attacked the non-elected government agency for delaying the scheme.

“The reason for this, we are told by Natural England, is that a study of some description has discovered that 84 nightingales might use the site,” he said. “The comparison to be drawn is between those 84 nightingales and homes for 12,000 people and jobs for a further 5,000 people. We are told by the Prime Minister that we are in a global race, but it is not clear that that message has yet filtered through to bodies such as Natural England.”

Can Ukip’s new champion of the nightingale and the Tory runner in the global race by any chance be related? They surely can!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senotshtooms (talkcontribs) 05:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]