Errors in the Times Guide to the House of Commons

[Deleted]

We've talked about this before, but I can't seem to track down what was said.

One of my Christmas presents was the Times Guide to the House of Commons 2015. It wasn't a present I had expected to receive, nor was it one I would have bought myself. This is due to the decline in the quality of the editions over the years (I have the editions between February 1974 and 2005; I declined to buy the 2010 edition), and also the increase in price: the latest edition was £60.

Anyway, I have it. I'd be obliged to know if anyone else in possession of this book has spotted any errors.

I'll kick off with "Conservative gain Louth & Horncastle".

[greenhert]

I am surprised even that minor error came up. Louth & Horncastle (and their predecessor seats for that matter) have been represented only by Conservative MPs since 1924!

[john07]

I have a 1950 edition that I picked up in second hand book shop in Great Yarmouth in 1970. I did find one glaring error, the photograph of one J Enoch Powell which was clearly not he. The photo was of someone around 30 years older that Powell at the time.

One subsequent edition I bought new was so riddled with errors that they had errata sheets inserted.

[carlton43]

Jan 1, 2016 15:41:33 GMT swanarcadian said:

We've talked about this before, but can't seem to track down what was said.

One of my Christmas presents was the Times Guide to the House of Commons 2015. It wasn't a present I had expected to receive, nor was it one I would have bought myself. This is due to the decline in the quality of the editions over the years (I have the editions between February 1974 and 2005; I declined to buy the 2010 edition), and also the increase in price: the latest edition was £60.

Anyway, I have it. I'd be obliged to know if anyone else in possession of this book has spotted any errors.

I'll kick off with "Conservative gain Louth & Horncastle".

Yes, I posted on that other thread. I booked an advance copy at the discounted price. I too have them back to the 60s and regret the lack of effective editing, better stats, better analysis, better photos, better paper, fuller biogs of far more candidates, etc., etc. I started to keep notes of errors with a view to a letter of complaint, but gave up at the enormity of the task having way over 100 entries. It is a mass of error of every sort. It is an absolute publishing disgrace.

[Deleted]

Jan 1, 2016 15:52:25 GMT john07 said:

I have a 1950 edition that I picked up in second hand book shop in Great Yarmouth in 1970. I did find one glaring error, the photograph of one J Enoch Powell which was clearly not he. The photo was of someone around 30 years older that Powell at the time.

One subsequent edition I bought new was so riddled with errors that they had errata sheets inserted.

I think you might be referring to the 1997 edition, where the turnout figures for 1992 had been placed in the fields where the majority percentages were supposed to be. In fact my 1997 edition began disintegrating after a few years, with the pages coming loose. I haven't had this problem with any of the other editions.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

It's now more than 45 years since Fred Craig wrote that "it is perhaps time for the publishers to consider whether their policy of rushing the book into print within a few weeks of the election is really a sound one".

He also noted of the 1970 edition that listing even the most obvious errors would fill several pages, and that other editions "never achieved in the past a terribly high standard of accuracy".

[Harry Hayfield]

I pre ordered a copy to save 40% of the cover price and will admit I had not noticed a Con GAIN in Louth, what I did notice though was the publishers sending me (at the expense of a first class stamp) a tiny piece of paper saying "Sorry, we got one tiny thing wrong in the history of a Conservative MP" a few months later

[Deleted]

Jan 1, 2016 17:14:15 GMT Harry Hayfield said:

I pre ordered a copy to save 40% of the cover price and will admit I had not noticed a Con GAIN in Louth, what I did notice though was the publishers sending me (at the expense of a first class stamp) a tiny piece of paper saying "Sorry, we got one tiny thing wrong in the history of a Conservative MP" a few months later

That bit of paper was enclosed in the front of my copy.

[johnloony]

I did actually buy my own copy for the full price this year, and I sometimes wonder why I bothered. The bits I dislike most are the unnecessarily tiny photographs, and the lack of proper comparison with the 2010 results. The best layout style is that of the 1987 edition, which is the earliest I have. The paper is poor quality (I noticed that the weight is substantially less, and the volume is more, than 2010 edition.) Oh, and the West Midlands county is missing from the map - the map itself being too small and completely inadequate.

[justin124]

I noticed that the 1966 edition has the incorrect date for the 1964 election. It refers to Polling Day having been October 8th whereas it was in fact October 15th.

[mick745]

I find the lists of defeated and retired MPs are not always that accurate. For instance in 1997 the list of defeated MPs failed to list Derek Spencer, Brighton Pavilion - the number of defeated MPs was 133 not 132. Unfortunately the wrong figure has been repeated in subsequent issues. In 2001 they ommitted these lists altogether although they would have been much shorter.

In October 1974 John Brewis, Galloway is listed as defeated when in fact he retired.

In 1945 - as many as 12 MPs are not listed as having retired and Oscar Guest appears as both defeated and retired!

There are often errors in the articles also, in 1997 for instance in the 'Portillo Heads the Cull of Doomed Ministers' article it states that 'before and during the election campaign 117 MPs had already declared they were standing down. By May 2 it was clear that a further 132 [sic] would be joining them against their will - the biggest exodus from the House of Commons this century'. Err, No! Did you forget about 1945 and 1931?

[Andrew_S]

Jan 1, 2016 16:37:36 GMT swanarcadian said:

Jan 1, 2016 15:52:25 GMT john07 said:

I have a 1950 edition that I picked up in second hand book shop in Great Yarmouth in 1970. I did find one glaring error, the photograph of one J Enoch Powell which was clearly not he. The photo was of someone around 30 years older that Powell at the time.

One subsequent edition I bought new was so riddled with errors that they had errata sheets inserted.

I think you might be referring to the 1997 edition, where the turnout figures for 1992 had been placed in the fields where the majority percentages were supposed to be. In fact my 1997 edition began disintegrating after a few years, with the pages coming loose. I haven't had this problem with any of the other editions.

My 1997 copy also started disintegrating a couple of years after I received it.

In the 1992 guide there's a mistake with the photo of the MP for either Midlothian or Merthyr Tydfil, I can't remember which.
In the 2010 guide they've got the photo for Nadhim Zahawi where Tom Harris should be: (Stratford and Glasgow South).
In the 2005 guide they describe South Staffs as a Tory gain IIRC.

There are lots of other errors that I can't remember at the moment.

[johnloony]

Jan 24, 2016 22:33:04 GMT Andrew_S said:

In the 1992 guide there's a mistake with the photo of the MP for either Midlothian or Merthyr Tydfil, I can't remember which.

Upon checking and comparing the editions for 1987, 1992 and 1997, It seems that a photo of Eric Clarke (Midlothian) is shown in place of Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney) in 1992. The photo for Midlothian in 1992 looks a bit like the photos for Ted Rowlands in 1987 and 1997, but more like someone else.

[mick745]

I am disappointed by the lack of party manifestos this year. I don't think I am going to bother buying it again, more accurate statistics are available online and the overall quality does not justify the price.

[carlton43]

Feb 5, 2016 20:55:38 GMT mick745 said:

I am disappointed by the lack of party manifestos this year. I don't think I am going to bother buying it again, more accurate statistics are available online and the overall quality does not justify the price.

Well, I am delighted they dropped those.

[Dalek]

The 2010 guide also had a number of errors in the constituency maps, misnamed constituencies in Greater Glasgow.

Many of the descriptions/ histories of each constituency is inaccurate. Most of the posters on this site could produce a better guide.

[carlton43]

Jul 16, 2016 16:38:17 GMT Dalek said:

The 2010 guide also had a number of errors in the constituency maps, misnamed constituencies in Greater Glasgow.

Many of the descriptions/ histories of each constituency is inaccurate. Most of the posters on this site could produce a better guide.

It would be well worth them sending us the proof layouts for super-vetting and return next time. 

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Anyone got the new Times Guide?

Turn to page 267 and read the biography of the Liberal Democrat candidate for Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Compare and contrast with: www.newcastlelibdems.org.uk/2017/04/24/our-general-election-candidate/

[Deleted]

This thread is a pedants charter.

[Strontium Dog]

Sept 30, 2017 12:12:41 GMT @conservativeestimate said:

This thread is a pedants charter.

I believe you are missing an apostrophe there...