Talk:Political party affiliation in the United Kingdom

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics: Political parties This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force. Politics of the United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I've created this page with the aim of creating greater transparency about UK political party membership restrictions since I've not been able to find such a thing in existence until now. I hope you find it useful.

Disclaimer, I am a member of the small Pirate Party UK who's membership nearly entirely, but not completely renders me ineligible to join any other UK political party for the reasons cited within Deku-shrub (talk) 18:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Green party not included?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is Deku-shrub (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There should be some caution expressed about membership figures, lapsed members or union membership etc. means accuracy is not there. Also comparing a national party with a regional makes comparison difficult. http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05125 also has some useful figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.249.23.158 (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless, of course, they are confirmed as accurate by reputable media outlets, such as in the case of Reform UK (on account of the attention to their membership numbers given in recent media coverage). Following an accusation of fakery from Kemi Badenoch, the party showed 4 media outlets their website code (front/back end) and each media outlet subsequently confirmed the accuracy of the numbers. If both the party and independent media outlets confirm the authenticity of the claim, then should this be taken as gospel? I don't imagine there would be any other way to verify the claim without a Wikipedia editor being given full access to the website. C R Munday (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gorgonopsi I've removed the Socialist Party of Great Britain that you added. I assume the membership figure you added is based on page 15 of this - https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/25334 - source that you added? This says "membership fees", which to imply a membership figure off of this would be WP:SYNTH. It would seem this is stating the money the party made from its membership, not how many members it has. I say this because the party is cited on its page (Socialist Party of Great Britain) as having a membership of around 300 in 2022. It would seem hard to believe that its membership went from 300 to 5,384 between August and 31 December of the same year. Plus, the fact that the membership fees figure in the accounts document gives a figure of 5,522 for 2021. So, if this were to mean membership numbers and not a purely financial statement its membership would have to have fluctuated massively from 5,522 in 2021 to 300 in August 2022 (see the BBC article for its cited membership of 300 on its page) back up to 5,384 by the end of 2022. This then leads me to believe these figures of 5,384 for 2022 and 5,522 in 2021 is just the money in pounds made from its membership, not actual membership numbers i.e. its monetary figures, not people figures. Helper201 (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

why does this page contain no reference to Reform UK, who is fielding candidates i n all seats?

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reform Party

147,477

December 28th 2024

Source: Https//www.reformparty.uk/counter

• The above source of origin in real-time and verified by numerous news outlets on 27th December 2024. Sky News being one. 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:1C9E:1059:43CA:FA8 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We prioritise reliable third-party sources over first party ones. Helper201 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done See subsequent edit requests. LizardJr8 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reform Party

Change 143,000 to 150,000

Citation: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/reform-uk-hit-huge-milestone-as-nigel-farages-party-membership-surges-to-150000/ar-AA1wEdz3#comments 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:253C:1A96:F863:FC47 (talk) 12:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. See WP:GBNEWS. Helper201 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change 143,000 to 152,000

Citation: https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1994163/reform-membership-kemi-badenoch-nigel-farage

2nd Paragraph of above citation "A digital counter on Reforms website ticked past 152,000 paid up supporters on Sunday"

Monday 30th December 2024 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:253C:1A96:F863:FC47 (talk) 09:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a reliable source. See WP:DAILYEXPRESS. Helper201 (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Increase Reform UK membership to 168,228 in accordance with their stated and third-party sourced membership figures as of 03/01/2025 K English 06 (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source: https://www.reformparty.uk/counter K English 06 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What third-party source? That is the party's own web site. I'm pretty sure that this party by now has more members than the Conservative Party, but this is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news site, so we can't keep changing the figures whenever a party declares a change in membership numbers, which, in this case, is via a live ticker. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Reform UK ownership from 153,446 to 174,594 as of January 2025

Source: https://www.reformparty.uk/counter GlitchedMastery (talk) 16:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an independent reliable source for that? We do not aim to keep up with a live ticker on a party web site. The article was updated just yesterday. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the Reform UK membership number to 175,240+ and the date to January 2025 SteveBarnes123 (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reform Party UK change 153,446 to 175,830

Citation:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rj6g07g2do

January 2025 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:B080:1C:5076:EB6E (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article to say more than 170,000, the figure given by the source in its own voice. Can someone who knows how mark this request as done and the ones above that didn't have an independent source as not done? Phil Bridger (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I've worked out how to do that myself! Phil Bridger (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Reform Change +170,000 to 180,000

Citation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14274423/Nigel-Farages-joy-channels-inner-Luke-Littler-Reform-membership-target.html

January 2025 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:8D80:1924:F78D:611A (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please provide an independent reliable source, which this is not per WP:DAILYMAIL. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"change +170,000 to +180,000" Citation: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14274423/Nigel-Farages-joy-channels-inner-Luke-Littler-Reform-membership-target.html# 1st sentence in article 2A02:C7C:5066:6900:A5AA:FA2D:7931:39A6 (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. I told you in the section above that that's not a reliable source. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]