Talk:Mike Penning

Controversial campaign?

Someone (an anon) added to the Tony McWalter page that the campaign between Penning and McWalter was bitter and controversial. I can't find anything about this online, but if someone can add some details (in a nice NPOV way, of course) that would help. Thanks. -- John Fader (talk | contribs) 16:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it's controversal, but I remember Conservatives ambushing the labour bus with pickets in the Hemel town centre at election time. Maybe they're refering to that kind of thing?

• I witnessed a row with Dexion workers but if its not in the newspapers then it can't go in. If I have time I'll update this, strictly NPOV and with citations as per rules JRPG (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It had already disappeared from McWalter's page. BTW, the 'discussion' with Dexion supporters was very noisy but not intimidating.

Accuracy

I've removed a few items which I can't find references for. I can't see a reference to a dog bowl, It may have been a joke or anecdote. The reference to him being the only former soldier in the Commons who wasn't an officer isn't in his bio and anyway his bio isn't an adequate source for this. JRPG (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More should be made of the fact he is an uneducated ex-squaddie. He responds to events like Buncefield, Dexion and Hemel hospital like a concerned MP but only pays lip service. He is a typical uneducated Brexiter without an 'O' level or 11-plus to his name. Mmmarkkk (talk) 16:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

2010 election. Largest swing??

http://www.thegovmonitor.com/world_news/britain/uk-election-2010-final-results-and-stats-30313.html says Hartlepool had the biggest swing and its shown as 16.7%. The calculation isn't trivial when there is a third party. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The quoted article actually states 16% (actually 16.7%) as the increase in the Tory vote not the swing which is given in The Guardian (8 May) as 12.82%. The article, and the Guardian, give Hemel as the largest Tory to Labour swing with 14.4%. Folks at 137 (talk) 16:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Drat, you're right! I just can't find any on-line top newspaper report citing the highest Lab-Tory swing. I'm not sure but having spent half an hour looking at it, Govmonitor appears to be a collector of news stories and I don't think I should use it. Could you let me have the Guardian headline?. In 2001 and 2005 Keele University had a fantastic website listing each constituency by marginalality.

My source for "highest swing" was The Guardian 8 May 2010, p.8 of the "How Britain voted" supplement. There's a list of the "Top 5 Labour to Tory swings"; Hemel 14.4% is top, followed by Cannock Chase at 14%. Haven't found it online, but an online page is likely to be replaced. If you set up the citation, I'll fill in any thing else I have/find. (PS plz remember to sign your comments!) Folks at 137 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

How about [1]? Folks at 137 (talk) 20:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Folks. I had already included the Watford Observer but would have preferred an on-line National. From personal experience, they tend to be more accurate and also keep the databases available, so far for at least 10 years. Our local paper removes stories after a few months. You may find Template:Cite web and other items on the same page useful or ask for help by email. ..I'll now concentrate on signing this post and then add the Guardian reference. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

References

Buncefield Fire and relevance of firefighting experience.

Given the size and unprecedented scale of the Buncefield fire and its massive and continuing effect on constituents, his expertise was highly relevant don't you think? Much more difficult for a minister to challenge. We both want a good NPOV article. The issue is developed later as the fire was understandably one of his main concerns in Parliament so it is appropriate in an introduction. Regards JRPG (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC) XXXX NO. He was a fireman like he was a squaddie XXXXX <<<< Mmmarkkk (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, that sort of thing doesn't belong in an introduction.

Secondly, you simply cannot put it in without a reliable source to confirm it. That is a Wikipedia requirement. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 09:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Greetings TreasuryTag. My intention is to expand the Buncefield section using aspects of Penning’s speech in the Westminster Hall debate. All sentences will have a reference to Hansard or other similar sources as per WP:sources. If you seriously wish to contribute and haven't done so already, please read the Buncefield explosion, the Buncefield Investigation and the Westminster Hall debate. I hope we will end up with a better article.

Why is it relevant/notable? This event has been described as the biggest explosion since WW2 with a cost estimated at around £1B. It rocked the country -literally. By a remarkable coincidence it happened in the constituency of one of only 2MPs who were formerly fire fighters. Penning had direct contact with Gold Command and local planning officials and was able to give an independent view of events to Parliament. I’m not aware of anything comparable in terms of a coincidence placing the right MP in the right constituency in an unforeseen emergency situation.

Why can’t it just go in the main article? This is about Penning. I’ll link to the main article but it won’t cover the same ground and won’t include anything overtaken by events. For the record, I know a lot of his constituents and was woken up at home by the blast 90 miles away. My own background includes some accident risk assessment + professional report writing and presentations for the MOD and I'm perfectly competent.

Regards JRPG (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So much of what you've written above is completely irrelevant. Your professional background is neither here nor there, and doesn't impress me in the slightest. The fact that it's all cited to Hansard is nothing to do with it. The number of his constituents who were woken up by the explosion is in no way germane, and neither is the fact that you know them.

Every MP has issues that they focus on a lot. Do we include huge paragraphs summing up each of their speeches on such matters? Of course not. Read WP:UNDUE. I know that the fire itself is notable. I am not convinced that anything more than a paragraph or two about Penning's response to it is notable, though. If you can find signifcant coverage of the fact that Penning's involvement was especially important (more than the small reference from a fellow MP already in the article) that would be a different matter. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 09:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking particularly of this passage from WP:UNDUE – "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 09:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is you are attempting to edit a subject you are not familiar with. To be fair you edit far more articles than I do but in less detail. I have no difficulty finding other references to the importance of Penning in the extraordinary circumstances of Buncefield and I'm fully familiar with wp:recentism, wp:undue and wp:peacock, none of which will cause any problem. In the interest of maintaining WP:civil, I will develop just this section on a user page so next time you see it it will be complete, fully referenced but still compact. We can then draw swords if required.
On a lighter note, I thoroughly enjoyed seeing the rfd of your talk page. Thanks for sharing it! JRPG (talk) 18:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Family Business

What was the family business he joined?. 'Going into the family business' is all it says on Mike Penning's website, but the Freight Transport Association says 'Having run his family business, which gave him hands-on experience of moving goods' so it looks like something relevant and positive to his former Transport responsibilities.

Legalisation of cannabis

The legalisation of cannabis is a contentious issue and speeches in parliament are not noted for their wp:npov! If anyone can find anything from wp:Suggested sources saying Penning hadn't looked at evidence then it should be included. JRPG (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Penning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050507001406/http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=40334 to http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.person.page&personID=40334

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:30, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Penning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130618213548/http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/p/24178/Michael+PENNING.aspx to http://www.debretts.com/people/biographies/browse/p/24178/Michael+PENNING.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)