![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a hole load of external links throughout the article. Should these not be references? Leonini ( talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
An election infobox should definitely be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.145.223 ( talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be premature to start an article for the 2012 mayoral election, but there are two items of information which relate to it:
213.86.122.5 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
User 81.2.97.151 keeps adding unsubstantiated claims about Garry Bushell and deleting citation requests so I propose to delete this paragraph shortly if citations are not provided. All other mayoral candidacies here are backed by third-party citations. AFAIK Garry Bushell has not stated he is standing - indeed his own website [1] makes no mention of it. 213.86.122.5 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching around for any evidence that Brian Haw is standing for Mayor in 2008 and can't find any. There are two places I've found it cited as a rumour (a blog and Indymedia) but even Brian's own site doesn't carry the news. I think this should be removed until a reputable citation can be provided. (Jim Jay) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.168 ( talk) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated Lindsey German's party according to:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=818&frmType=partydetail -- Gordon ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Gordon ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite the One London section a little, for now I'll leave it where it is, bit should it be moved to the bottom of the list?
How is the order decided? I'm happy to leave the top 8 as they are, but should the others be done alphabetically? -- Gordon ( talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Having chosen the mayor in the way described, are there any other consequences for the electorate having voted as it did? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reordered it so candidates come before those who are not standing. We could probably do with putting the candidates into an order - alphabetical of candidate or party names perhaps?
Is there a legal distinction between 'Withdrawn' and 'did not stand'? Pontificake ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
And I think some of the selection process section is too long for this article. Pontificake ( talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Andehandehandeh ( talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In its current post-nominations close state it's an absolute mess. I have given up on trying to fix what is ostensibly vandalism.
For the future, I think a section on current candidates (with or without their selection histories -- might be needed as the campaign develops) and then a separate section on those who attempted a run but didn't, would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's better! Thanks to whoever sorted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is RodCrosby's update to the page a question of semantics?
If there are only two candidates left, one of them is bound to have a majority, if not of the entire vote, of the 2nd round.-- Gordon ( talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone abject to opinion polling?
Other elections such as the US Presidential election (yes I know its bigger/"more important" though) has polling? Samaster1991 ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is worth mentioning that votes will be counted by machine in this election, this is the first major election in the UK to be doing something like this since the may 2007 elections in england and scotland where e-voting and e-counting failed miserably. The Open Rights Group was observing these elections and did not express confidence in the results a fairly damning report was submitted to and discussed in the house of commons on the matter. This is of fairly large concern to many people and i feel is worth mentioning. -- Stoman101 ( talk) 19:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is confused and potentially misleading: "A digital image of the ballot paper was also taken so if there were problems with any of the papers, they could be examined by humans." What is 'they' ('they could be examined by humans')referring to? The paper ballots? Or the digital images of the paper ballots? The digital images were not created to deal with problems (which is what the text suggests): they were created to count the votes. Where there were problems with the digital images (such as artifacts or extraneous paper super-imposition on the ballot), no reference was made by count staff to the original paper ballot at all. All this is fully documented in the Open Rights Group report. A worthwhile read for anyone writing about this stuff.
This is not an election for the City of London but for London. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Full second preference figures have now been posetd on the London Elects website ( http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/MayoralResult.aspx). I have added figures and percentages to table.
We have only been given where the votes went 'to' under 2nd preference - not where those votes came 'from' (in terms of 1st preference). Yes, that isn't strictly relevant since all the 'minor' candidates are eliminated in a single stage under the rules but the information is intriguing never-the-less (such as how many 2nd pref votes Boris Johnson collected from the BNP). This correlated data may exist - or it may never have been collated. The 'images' of voting papers were initially retained by the election authority - but have they since been deleted? Also there were a lot of uncounted 'Rejected - 2nd preference' ballots (412,054) whilst there was a similar number of 'No 2nd preference' (407,840) ballots. I take it the latter figure sits entirely within the former figure? If it does, then there is little effect on the result.
The column listing the number of final votes seems to have a bit of an issue: Only combined totals for the top two candidates were released AFAIK, and the "final" votes for the LibDem and Green candidates are arrived at by simply adding the first and second preferences for those candidates. This overstates the results compared to what Livingstone and Johnson won, vote-share wise since some of the second preference votes for the LibDems and Greens likely came from either Johnson or Livingstone's supporters (which would, in turn, increase Johnson and Livingstone's share of the vote by removing redundant votes).
In short, the "final vote" numbers for both of those candidates ought to be removed and the vote shares reverted to what they were before, as neither the LibDem nor Green candidates were in the second round of counting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.100.64 ( talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of spoilt ballot papers should be included (as it was a significant number)
What would have happened if, rather than creating spoilt papers, people had voted for Matt O'Connor, who withdrew? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article:
From the text I assume the Open Rights Group has been acting as unofficial observers at the election and have produced a report of their findings. Unfortunately the source used to support these statements is a self-published report by the Open Rights Group. I would be a bit less wary if the report was picked up by a reliable, third party source, but at the moment its inclusion looks a little self-promoting. Road Wizard ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
London mayoral election, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://extranet.electoralcommission.org.uk/document-summary?assetid=57285When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=conservatives-delay-mayoral-selection&article_id=370{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=Tories-Select-Mayoral-Shortlist&article_id=732{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=simon-hughes-cameron-reforms-failing&article_id=377{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35374When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest reverting to the older image of Johnson File:Boris_Johnson_(cropped).jpg, as it is a more accurate depiction of what he looked like around the time the election took place. SnoopingAsUsual ( talk) 10:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've created a mockup for a new version of the opinion poll table (first round only). It's styled similarly to other polling tables, but I've included the party name and the candidate's name within the same cell, similarly to other articles ( 2023 Paraguayan general election, Opinion polling for the 2022 French presidential election). The idea for this is for it to be used for other candidate based constests (by-elections, mayors, etc.). Any thoughts?
Dates conducted |
Pollster |
Johnson Con |
Livingstone Lab |
Paddick Lib Dems |
Berry Green |
Barnbrook BNP |
Batten UKIP |
Others | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 May 2008 | 2008 election | 43.2% | 37.0% | 9.8% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 1.2% | 2.4% | 6.2 |
30 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 43% | 36% | 13% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 7 |
28 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 46% | 35% | 12% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 11 |
27 Apr 2008 | mruk Cello | 43% | 44% | 9% | – | – | – | 4% | 1 |
24 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 38% | 41% | 12% | – | – | – | 9% | 3 |
18 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 44% | 37% | 12% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 7 |
14 Apr 2008 | mruk Cello | 44% | 45% | 9% | – | – | – | 2% | 1 |
11 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 45% | 39% | 12% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 6 |
9 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 46% | 40% | 11% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 6 |
7 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 40% | 41% | 14% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 1 |
4 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 49% | 36% | 10% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 13 |
1 Apr 2008 | ICM | 42% | 41% | 10% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 1 |
25 Mar 2008 | YouGov | 47% | 37% | 10% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 3% | 10 |
14 Mar 2008 | YouGov | 49% | 37% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 12 |
21 Feb 2008 | YouGov | 44% | 39% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 5 |
12 Feb 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 38% | 42% | 16% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 4 |
24 Jan 2008 | YouGov | 40% | 44% | 8% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 4 |
21 Dec 2007 | YouGov | 44% | 45% | 7% | – | – | – | 4% | 1 |
9 Nov 2007 | YouGov | 39% | 45% | 8% | – | – | – | 8% | 6 |
10 Jun 2004 | 2004 election | 29.1% [a] | 36.8% | 15.3% [b] | 3.1% [c] | 3.1% [d] | 6.2% [e] | 6.4% | 7.7 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There are a hole load of external links throughout the article. Should these not be references? Leonini ( talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
An election infobox should definitely be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.145.223 ( talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
It may be premature to start an article for the 2012 mayoral election, but there are two items of information which relate to it:
213.86.122.5 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
User 81.2.97.151 keeps adding unsubstantiated claims about Garry Bushell and deleting citation requests so I propose to delete this paragraph shortly if citations are not provided. All other mayoral candidacies here are backed by third-party citations. AFAIK Garry Bushell has not stated he is standing - indeed his own website [1] makes no mention of it. 213.86.122.5 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been searching around for any evidence that Brian Haw is standing for Mayor in 2008 and can't find any. There are two places I've found it cited as a rumour (a blog and Indymedia) but even Brian's own site doesn't carry the news. I think this should be removed until a reputable citation can be provided. (Jim Jay) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.168 ( talk) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I have updated Lindsey German's party according to:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=818&frmType=partydetail -- Gordon ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
-- Gordon ( talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite the One London section a little, for now I'll leave it where it is, bit should it be moved to the bottom of the list?
How is the order decided? I'm happy to leave the top 8 as they are, but should the others be done alphabetically? -- Gordon ( talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Having chosen the mayor in the way described, are there any other consequences for the electorate having voted as it did? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reordered it so candidates come before those who are not standing. We could probably do with putting the candidates into an order - alphabetical of candidate or party names perhaps?
Is there a legal distinction between 'Withdrawn' and 'did not stand'? Pontificake ( talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
And I think some of the selection process section is too long for this article. Pontificake ( talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Andehandehandeh ( talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
In its current post-nominations close state it's an absolute mess. I have given up on trying to fix what is ostensibly vandalism.
For the future, I think a section on current candidates (with or without their selection histories -- might be needed as the campaign develops) and then a separate section on those who attempted a run but didn't, would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist ( talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, that's better! Thanks to whoever sorted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist ( talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Is RodCrosby's update to the page a question of semantics?
If there are only two candidates left, one of them is bound to have a majority, if not of the entire vote, of the 2nd round.-- Gordon ( talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Would anyone abject to opinion polling?
Other elections such as the US Presidential election (yes I know its bigger/"more important" though) has polling? Samaster1991 ( talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is worth mentioning that votes will be counted by machine in this election, this is the first major election in the UK to be doing something like this since the may 2007 elections in england and scotland where e-voting and e-counting failed miserably. The Open Rights Group was observing these elections and did not express confidence in the results a fairly damning report was submitted to and discussed in the house of commons on the matter. This is of fairly large concern to many people and i feel is worth mentioning. -- Stoman101 ( talk) 19:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is confused and potentially misleading: "A digital image of the ballot paper was also taken so if there were problems with any of the papers, they could be examined by humans." What is 'they' ('they could be examined by humans')referring to? The paper ballots? Or the digital images of the paper ballots? The digital images were not created to deal with problems (which is what the text suggests): they were created to count the votes. Where there were problems with the digital images (such as artifacts or extraneous paper super-imposition on the ballot), no reference was made by count staff to the original paper ballot at all. All this is fully documented in the Open Rights Group report. A worthwhile read for anyone writing about this stuff.
This is not an election for the City of London but for London. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Full second preference figures have now been posetd on the London Elects website ( http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/MayoralResult.aspx). I have added figures and percentages to table.
We have only been given where the votes went 'to' under 2nd preference - not where those votes came 'from' (in terms of 1st preference). Yes, that isn't strictly relevant since all the 'minor' candidates are eliminated in a single stage under the rules but the information is intriguing never-the-less (such as how many 2nd pref votes Boris Johnson collected from the BNP). This correlated data may exist - or it may never have been collated. The 'images' of voting papers were initially retained by the election authority - but have they since been deleted? Also there were a lot of uncounted 'Rejected - 2nd preference' ballots (412,054) whilst there was a similar number of 'No 2nd preference' (407,840) ballots. I take it the latter figure sits entirely within the former figure? If it does, then there is little effect on the result.
The column listing the number of final votes seems to have a bit of an issue: Only combined totals for the top two candidates were released AFAIK, and the "final" votes for the LibDem and Green candidates are arrived at by simply adding the first and second preferences for those candidates. This overstates the results compared to what Livingstone and Johnson won, vote-share wise since some of the second preference votes for the LibDems and Greens likely came from either Johnson or Livingstone's supporters (which would, in turn, increase Johnson and Livingstone's share of the vote by removing redundant votes).
In short, the "final vote" numbers for both of those candidates ought to be removed and the vote shares reverted to what they were before, as neither the LibDem nor Green candidates were in the second round of counting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.100.64 ( talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The number of spoilt ballot papers should be included (as it was a significant number)
What would have happened if, rather than creating spoilt papers, people had voted for Matt O'Connor, who withdrew? Jackiespeel ( talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the following text from the article:
From the text I assume the Open Rights Group has been acting as unofficial observers at the election and have produced a report of their findings. Unfortunately the source used to support these statements is a self-published report by the Open Rights Group. I would be a bit less wary if the report was picked up by a reliable, third party source, but at the moment its inclusion looks a little self-promoting. Road Wizard ( talk) 00:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)
DumZiBoT ( talk) 06:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
London mayoral election, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 00:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://extranet.electoralcommission.org.uk/document-summary?assetid=57285When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=conservatives-delay-mayoral-selection&article_id=370{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=Tories-Select-Mayoral-Shortlist&article_id=732{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/news.php?slug=simon-hughes-cameron-reforms-failing&article_id=377{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=35374When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on London mayoral election, 2008. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I suggest reverting to the older image of Johnson File:Boris_Johnson_(cropped).jpg, as it is a more accurate depiction of what he looked like around the time the election took place. SnoopingAsUsual ( talk) 10:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I've created a mockup for a new version of the opinion poll table (first round only). It's styled similarly to other polling tables, but I've included the party name and the candidate's name within the same cell, similarly to other articles ( 2023 Paraguayan general election, Opinion polling for the 2022 French presidential election). The idea for this is for it to be used for other candidate based constests (by-elections, mayors, etc.). Any thoughts?
Dates conducted |
Pollster |
Johnson Con |
Livingstone Lab |
Paddick Lib Dems |
Berry Green |
Barnbrook BNP |
Batten UKIP |
Others | Lead |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 May 2008 | 2008 election | 43.2% | 37.0% | 9.8% | 3.2% | 3.2% | 1.2% | 2.4% | 6.2 |
30 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 43% | 36% | 13% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 3% | 7 |
28 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 46% | 35% | 12% | 2% | 2% | 1% | 2% | 11 |
27 Apr 2008 | mruk Cello | 43% | 44% | 9% | – | – | – | 4% | 1 |
24 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 38% | 41% | 12% | – | – | – | 9% | 3 |
18 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 44% | 37% | 12% | 3% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 7 |
14 Apr 2008 | mruk Cello | 44% | 45% | 9% | – | – | – | 2% | 1 |
11 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 45% | 39% | 12% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 6 |
9 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 46% | 40% | 11% | 2% | 0% | 1% | 0% | 6 |
7 Apr 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 40% | 41% | 14% | 0% | 5% | 0% | 0% | 1 |
4 Apr 2008 | YouGov | 49% | 36% | 10% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 13 |
1 Apr 2008 | ICM | 42% | 41% | 10% | 4% | 1% | 0% | 2% | 1 |
25 Mar 2008 | YouGov | 47% | 37% | 10% | 2% | 1% | 0% | 3% | 10 |
14 Mar 2008 | YouGov | 49% | 37% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 0% | 12 |
21 Feb 2008 | YouGov | 44% | 39% | 10% | 1% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 5 |
12 Feb 2008 | Ipsos MORI | 38% | 42% | 16% | 2% | 1% | 1% | 0% | 4 |
24 Jan 2008 | YouGov | 40% | 44% | 8% | 1% | 1% | 2% | 0% | 4 |
21 Dec 2007 | YouGov | 44% | 45% | 7% | – | – | – | 4% | 1 |
9 Nov 2007 | YouGov | 39% | 45% | 8% | – | – | – | 8% | 6 |
10 Jun 2004 | 2004 election | 29.1% [a] | 36.8% | 15.3% [b] | 3.1% [c] | 3.1% [d] | 6.2% [e] | 6.4% | 7.7 |