![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is relivent to the next local elections in the United Kingdom which is due to take place next May. -- veganfishcake ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Bristol is not a District council it is a Unitary authority. There are no units of administration subordinate to it because there are no Parishes within the city. It does have the status of a Ceremonial County. I think you should change the terminology in this article to reflect that fact. Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Have added proper election box for this page to make it consistent with very other set of local elections. I have included UKIP in this election box on the basis of conversations held on the talk pages of Talk:Next United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. The reason being is that these elections are less than 6months away and UKIP and the Lib Dems have been in a statistical polling tie for over 9months. Furthermore The Liberal Democrats do not tend to do as well in county council elections as compared to Metropolitan areas, whereas UKIP tend do better in County Council Elections than they do in Metropolitan Areas. Both Parties based on the polls and on their previous performance stand just as much chance of doing well as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that we can't really justify adding UKIP now, they need to achieve significant gains for them to be included in the info box, this has been discussed on the 2015 eection page. It has been agreed that we do not revisit the idea of UKIPs inclusion until after these results are published! That argument also applies to this page! Doktorbuk as for the 2009 EP elections, I don't get what your problem is? I mean it's like your just saying no, no, no without reading anything. I get why your doing that on this page...I agree with you but I really don't think you have behaved well on 2009 EP elections. I would like to ask others to come and look at the evidence on the talk page and contribute. We need consensus on this, out of 5 editors Doktorbuk is the only one that will not engage in the argument and simply says no. I have stood up for you Doktorbuk, I have tried to be fair but now yu are being unreasonable! Nick Nick Dancer 10:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Added figures to election box as promised! The elections last took place in 2009, so I have taken those current results and placed them as previous results on this page. Nick Nick Dancer 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone has created - I think to make a WP:POINT - an article for the 2014 local elections. I dare say that the AfD which is necessary won't go down well if I started it so can someone please do the necessary and get it deleted? doktorb words deeds 09:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, keep the article just remove UKIP. I have re-aligned the election box so that all leaders and parties are on the same row. If UKIP do well in this 2013 set of council elections, then there might be an argument for inclusion in 2014. It all depends, at the moment there is no reason to consider this until at least these results have been published. This has been discussed at great length on the 2015 election talk page. Nick Nick Dancer 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, it kind of was to make a point, I don't normally do that sort of thing, in fact well, I haven't done it before actually! But your behaviour on that 2009 Euro Elections page was just so unreasonable, your refusal to look at evidence, staring you in the face! And to think, I actually stook up for you! Look I don't want anyone to fall out over this, I just want to get that discussion sorted. So can you please stop being obstanant and obstructive to consensus! Nick Nick Dancer 11:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I'm sorry, I don't normally get angry on here but I've not known anything like it from a regular editor! Sure you get it all the time from the IPs. It just got to me. Bondegezou could you revert it, I don't want a war! Nick Nick Dancer 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I Have absolutely no problem ensuring that the 2014 local elections page goes through a deletion process once the 2009 Euro Election page is solved. I will do that right away once we sort out 2009! I hate having to do this but we seem to be unable to move on from the issue. I suggest that neither you or I make any more edits to the 2009 Euro elections page. I think this needs to be done by someone else ike Bondegezou. Once this has been done, I will start deletion process as promised, one local election at a time seems sensible! Nick Nick Dancer 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to step away from this for a week, I just want to know what the action plan is....what happens next, it happened 3 years ago and it's left up in the air. That's all I want to know, I'm happy to remove myself, I just want to know what and when is going to be done! Nick Nick Dancer 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Nick should remove the page come what may, the 2013 eection hasn't happened yet! That said 2009 needs sorting out straight away, the issue is in the past and needs to be put in the past, especially in light od the existing page for the 2014 European Elections! Can we please sort it without Nick orDoktorbucks involvement? Removing them from the decission making resolves your issue!( talk Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 13:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now that I know we're not simply brushng the issue under the carpet and that it will be looked at again in the next few days/a week. I will in good faith start deletion! That's all I wanted, to make sure that people wouldn't think t issue would go away by the passing of time. I've made a note to revisit the page and so I will. This should give people the oppourtunity to contribute. Nick Nick Dancer 14:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
As promised deletion process is under way, if there are no objections placed on he tak page etc then the entry will automatically be deleted in a weeks time! Nick Nick Dancer 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there are a fe problems on the page I mention similar to this. It is with regard to removing the Green Party and the BNP from the info box on the bassis that they only have 2 seats. The info box is a summary box, to give the headline result for those who have significant representation, the full results are posted lower down the page. To my mind 2 is no a significant number by any stretch of the imagination! Whats more there are other parties (all be it regional ones) that have got the same number of seats. What's more the ren Party had not increased their representation in 2009, they had also gained 2 seats in 2004, notice the Green Party is not included in that election box! Furthemore, if we go back to the 1999 elections we can see that UKIP had gained 3 seats (more than 2) and this was righty not deemed relevent for inclusion in the info box. I have put all this evidence on the talk page with links. There is great inconsistency here. We have agreement of 4 to 1 to remove them but Doktorbuk will only say no and is not engaging in discussion. Can other editors please come across and help us reach consensus. Nick Nick Dancer 11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm realy sorry to have to do so but other editors are just not coming across and Doktorbuk is our ownly obstruction to consensus! I would really appreciate it if you Bondegezou could come over and look at things. We have consensus of 4 to 1 and it's just getting ridiculous! Please help us! Nick Nick Dancer 11:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think since the 2009 Euro Election issue is in the past we should seek to put it to bed straight away, I have suggested that neither myself or Doktorbuk make the edit on the basis you have just described! I have promised Doktorbuk that I will seek deletion of the 2014 Local elections page on the basis that we should deal with one set of local elections at a time, 3013 hasn't even happened yet. I will do this once the 2009 issue is finally put to bed! Could you please look at this Bondegezou since you are not involved in the heated debate and are therefore more impartial. As you say Rrius' proposals are sensible and now have consensus. Many Thanks Nick Nick Dancer 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, thank you but where do we go from here? It's all up in the air and it happened 3 years ago. All I want to know is where do we go from here? Nick Nick Dancer 12:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that debate has moved on a lot...but has got nowhere! I have to agree with Nick in that neither he or Doktorbuk should be involved in any further edits! I also agree that this issue needs to be resolved! There is no reason to delay making a decision on this issue if the 2 people in dispute are removed from the equation! Lets get this sorted, Rrius has suggested something that is acceptable and sensible to all of us! I don't see why it can't be done! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 13:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Nick Dancer has kindly added last election numbers to the infobox. However, these are for 2009. Most of the 2013 elections were last held in 2009, so I see the logic. However, the articles for the 2012 and 2011 local elections use the preceding year for their comparisons. Following that example, the last election numbers here should be the 2012 results, not the 2009 results. Thoughts? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's right. These 2013 elections are county council elections. The 2012 elections were predominantly Metropolitan Councils. The last time these seats were contested was in 2009. I'd say keep it as it is, so that we're comparing like with like. All wards are up for election more or less every 4 years (some exceptions). So if I'm not mistaken this is pretty much an exact rerun (seat by seat) of 2009. Nick Nick Dancer 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Great stuff Doktorbuk, we have some form of agreement, it seems that the best thing to do is use the 2009 figures and carefully make necessary adjustments, as like we say it is not an exact replica of 2009. Nick Nick Dancer 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
User:86.156.154.192 is making a lot of changes, which are breaking the infobox, and doesn't seem to be answering User:Bondegezou's entirely reasonable request to discuss the purpose of the changes. I suggest we revert them -- Cabalamat ( talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The above is incorrect. Just three cover a WHOLE ceremonial county (Bristol, Isle of Wight and Northumberland), and seven are authorities with the same name as a (slightly) larger ceremonial county (just the council of the Isles of Scilly isn't).
Anyway, the comparison to ceremonial counties does not add anything. What should perhaps be explained is that, technically, 6 are county councils where the district council has been abolished, Bristol is a district council where the county council has been abolished, and the council of the Isles of Scilly is sui generis. Yamor2 ( talk) 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 councils in England, 1 council in Wales, 2 Directly Elected Mayors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This subject has been raised before on other pages, such as the 2015 General Election page. The suggestion has been rightfully dismissed on that page, as the general election is 2 and a half years away and current polling with current trends can not justify something so far into the future. However, on this page and this page alone (at least for now) I would say that there is a strong enough argument to add UKIP and it's leader to the info box. The first reason relates to polling, UKIP have been in a statistical tie (within the margin of error) of the Lib Dems for the vast majority of 2012, (for around 9months). UKIP have even polled significantly ahead of the Lib Dems on occasion in a variety of polls over that period. Since the local elections are only 5months away, I would say the "flash in the pan" test has been passed and that it would be highly presumptuous to suggest otherwise. Unless someone has a crystal ball that will tell us that UKIP's poll ratings will go through the floor before this election, then I would say this 1st argument is valid. The second argument and perhaps the more significant argument is that UKIP and the Lib Dems will be standing a similar number of candidates. Currently UKIP have selected more candidates than the Lib Dems. For the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 both UKIP and the Lib Dems were included in the info box as they both had 24 candidates each, out of a possible 41. Both parties were removed from the info box after the election had taken place as neither party gained a commissioner. Therefore, for now at least, I propose we add UKIP to the box because their poll ratings are sufficiently consistent and the election is getting fairly close. UKIP are fielding enough candidates to be considered as relevant as the Lib Dems, many more than the smaller parties! Previous results are not the only factor we should consider here if we are to reflect reality. Yes the previous election is always a good indicator cetris paribus but the point is all other things have to be equal and they are not, therefore we must not over emphasise the previous result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The info box is not just for previous results. The Green Party are not putting up a large number of candidates, nowhere near as many as UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Greens barely manage 1/3 of what UKIP and The Lib Dems achieve in public opinion polls. This change is being made/suggested on the basis that UKIP and The Lib Dems are in a statistical polling tie and have been for quite some time. You would need a crystal ball to suggest that this 9month long polling tie is going to break in the next few months. Also the number of candidates is key, look at the PCC elections and go back into the history, we have a precedent here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of the motion. I must make it clear though, that we have had discussions on this for the 2014 and 2015 elections and we mutually agreed not to make a decision on those elections until this 2013 election has passed. So my support for adding UKIP to the info box is categorically not to be extended to 2014 or 2015, it is too early to make those decisions! As far as I'm concerned UKIP have ticked all the boxes (apart from their lack of current seats) but we have to reflect reality, we can't simply base these things on the past, nor can we peer into a crystal ball, lets work with the facts. We have the statistical polling tie and the fact that UKIP have just as many/more candidates than the Lib Dems (depending on which council). These 2 facts mean that UKIP are just as much in contention as the Lib Dems. I don't see the Green Party argument as credible, the only claim is they won 18seats, big woop, how many candidates have they got? Nowhere near enough to be considered big contenders! What are the Green Party polling? Little more than the BNP and Respect, about 3%. Nick Nick Dancer 23:34, 04 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Doktorbuk I just want to clarify that for this one election I am in favor of UKIP being included for the reasons discussed. I get what your saying when it comes to the later elections, part of UKIP proving themselves involves a strong performance in this 2013 election! However, we would not be reflecting reality if we simply showed the result of the last election. Yes, the last election is very important and ceteris paribus I agree with you in principle but, that's the thing, the reality of the situation has changed, in terms of polling and candidates standing, this in turn affects the election, this is not using a crystal ball, this is simply reporting the facts before us! Nick Nick Dancer 23:57, 04 January 2013 (UTC)
I support the change. However, I would be happy to see the decision reversed if UKIPs poll ratings consistently plummet for say 6 consecutive weeks. Also if the numbers of candidates change significantly, the decision may need to be reviewed. Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why this edit has been reversed. I'm in agreement with Sheffno1gunner's suggestion, to only remove UKIP from the info box if and only if we can see that UKIPs poll ratings have plummeted for a significant period of time. Only if you had a Crystal ball could you suggest that this consistent trend of a statistical tie with the Lib Dems will end before the May elections. However if UKIP end up loosing enough of their candidates and their poll ratings drop enough for at least a month, then yes we should remove them from the page! We are not here to just summaries the previous result, a page already exists for that! Summarizing the previous result is often key but when reality changes, we must reflect it! The simple fact of the matter is that UKIP are just as much in contention as the Lib Dems based on the dramatic increase in the number of candidates fielded and due to the poll ratings. Also Doktorbuk, political betting is not exactly a reputable source is it? Non of us on here are talking about odds or betting or using a crystal ball! We're talking about reflecting the current reality on the ground! Yes the previous result is a big part of that but it is not the be all and end all! I will reverse your edit, the consensus is clearly not with you on this one. Nick Nick Dancer 15:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I just wish to reconfirm that I am in favour of the addition of UKIP to the info box as the evidence presented is indeed convincing. I must once again reiterate though, that if the statistical tie between UKIP and the Lib Dems is broken for a period of 6consecutive weeks then we should reverse the change. Breaking of the statistical tie does not mean that UKIP poll say 1 or 2% less than the Lib Dems consistently, breaking of the statistical tie means that UKIP would no longer be polling within the margin of error of the Lib Dems for those 6consecutive weeks! Also a dramatic reduction in candidates fielded would also warrant removing the party from the box, as things stand though, they should stay for this one election. All other future elections must be looked at on their own merits, we can not make such decissions on those until after this election and even then we can only work one at a time. I hope this makes it absolutely clear that the addition of UKIP to this info box does not give anyone the right to try and add them to the 2015 general election box, we are not making a decision on that until after the 2014 elections! Leave this info box with UKIP in it for now, if the facts change, then so should the page! Right now, there is significant evidence for their inclusion! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Did doktorbuk just start an edit war? That is a shame, I would have expected better from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Your stance is quite clear but you describe it a bit differently! I accept what you say about past election results which immediately invalidates adding UKIP to other pages until after this election at the earliest. However we are here and now and we do have enough evidence to make this change, as others seem to agree to! UKIP didn't lose seats in 2012, in net terms they held the same no of seats, they gained some seats but they also lost the same number of seats as they gained. The seats they lost were Tory defectors anyway, so they didn't loose any elected representatives, so that is an inaccurate claim you have made! UKIP have been winning local by-elections and showing some very strong 2nd places as well, sure you can pick examples where they haven't if you want but by and large they are gaining vote share in large amounts at local level! Your argument for opinion polls is weak! National opinion polls apply for all forms of election apart from European Elections. They are weighted as such as well! Notice how pollsters ask a number of questions and actually it is clear in their methodology that there is a direct link between their polling for local and general elections, to suggest otherwise would be original research because you yourself would have to do correlation tests to disprove that! Again, the greens have a very small number of candidates nationwide, UKIP and the Lib Dems have a sufficient number to put them in contention the Greens simply dont! The Greens lead Brighton council but do not have overall control, on the other hand UKIP have majority control of Ramsey council! Your Green Party argument is irrelevant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine, for now I accept most of what you 2 say but I must correct you on something! You say that UKIP have not been in a ststistical polling tie for most of 2012, I think you misunderstand what that means. A ststistical tie does not mean that they are achieving the same percentage, or that the 3rd place position is consistently changing! A statistical polling tie is where they are within the margin of error, this has been the case since early March 2012, as in most polls UKIP have been 1/2% behind the Lib Dems (sometimes it goes higher then that but the vast majority is between 1 and 2). 1/2% is within the standard margin of error for opinion polls by pollsters own admittion, the margin of error is generally between 2 and 4% for most polsters, generally 3% is the average margin of error! So please do not try and over simplify things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added the UK Independence Party to the infro box due to a change in circumstances since the last discussion. The change in circumstances as well as preexisting arguments warrants the addition of UKIP to info box because:
Also doktorb, I understand that this might be hard for you but you can't let your own self confessed political views cloud your judgement! This is a very reasonable proposition, which is clearly justified 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
− −
I agree not to revert your edit as I do not want to breach Wikipedia policy. Others need to engage in this discussion. You also need to address the points I have raised which you have failed to do so! Your only real defense that has any weigh is that no one else has agreed to it yet! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 11:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the light of repeated issues around anonymous editing of this article, problems that will only increase as we get nearer the elections, would it be appropriate to seek semi-protection for this article? Bondegezou ( talk) 11:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As per basic Wikipedia policy, we need to be guided by reliable sources. When it comes to the coverage of different political parties, the BBC helpfully publish and explain their guidelines: see [1] for these forthcoming local elections. It would seem to me sensible for us equally to be guided by those. Those very clearly state that the main parties in the English local elections are the Conservative, Labour and LibDems. Then they cover smaller parties, with specific notes on UKIP and the Greens. They explain that guidance is based on four factors: "performance at the last equivalent election (eg the county council elections in 2009) in terms of representation and/or share of the vote."; "performance in subsequent elections, where relevant"; "other relevant evidence of current electoral support"; and "the number of candidates a party fields in the election". Bondegezou ( talk) 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
BBC Criteria
I agree that we should reflect the below statement that you quoted:
My above argument shows that the BBC criteria is fulfilled. I have given sound reasoning for this change and I expect it to be made as and when the number of candidates issue is resolved by the opening of nominations! Thank you! 81.149.185.174 ( talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 13:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
References
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Why do only a few have "Details" so far for 2013? More! I don't think that Metropolitan County Councils should be segregated from Non-Metropolitan County Councils. A more systematic way of doing things with regard to this page and other such pages is required, i would say. Etcetera. Maybe put all of the individual ones, split it up more, expand, even if it's a long list. General local elections page? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 212.50.171.223 ( talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon
I feel that the addition of a map of England and Wales showing which areas have elections would greatly improve this article! Obviously we would have to label the areas where there are Mayoral contests differently. What are people's thought? Anyone able to do this? Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I try and do election maps whenever I have some time - this one shows where elections are being held in 2013 - non-metropolitan counties in light green, unitary authorities in orange, mayoral elections in purple, and no elections in light grey. This doesn't have Anglesey as I haven't got a map of English and Welsh council areas together. Spiritofsussex ( talk) 11:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we can use this map for the England section straight away. If no one objects I'll add it later today. David ( talk) 09:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Many of the councils which are up have published their statements of persons nominated, and it appears that UKIP have more candidates than the Liberal Democrats; and a similar amount to Labour. This is surely notable in regard to Wikipedia policy (please correct me if I am wrong) therefore I propose that UKIP are added to the infobox now so that the article remains both impartial and up to date in regard to recent developments in the lead-up to these particular elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.199.188 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I perhaps suggest this stance. Barring an absolute miracle, UKIP will do well enough in the elections to be added to the summary box after the elections. Unless they win nothing at all, or just one seat out of the hundreds available, I'm happy to accept UKIP in the summary box after polling day. Putting them there *before* assumes that the status would be the same afterwards, and that breaks CRYSTAL and UNDUEBIAS. So let's wait. Not because we're ganging up against UKIP; but because we're trying to be reasonable. doktorb words deeds 19:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
To put this in perspective, I looked back at earlier articles. The earliest UK local elections article to have an infobox is United Kingdom local elections, 1999. Every year since then has had an infobox with the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats and those have also always been the top three parties. The closest results between the bottom of those three and the top performing others were as follows.
The two most marginal cases must be 1999 and 2009. In 1999, the LibDems won 2609 councillors out of a total of 13332 (i.e. 20%), and 20 councils out of 362 (6%). Independents won 1551 councillors (12%) and 18 councils (5%). The SNP won 208 councillors (2%) and 1 council (0.3%). Plaid Cymru won 205 councillors (2%) and 2 councils (0.6%).
In 2009, Labour won 178 councillors out of 2362 (8%) and no councils out of 34. Independents won 97 councillors (4%) and no councils. The Greens won 18 councillors (1%) and no councils.
Other notable cases are 2006: the LibDems won 909 councillors out of 4418 (21%) and 13 councils out of 176 (7%). The BNP won 32 councillors (1%) and no councils. Residents Associations won 35 councillors (1%) and no councils. In 2007, Labour won 1877 councillors out of 10479 (18%) and 34 councils out of 227 (15%). The Greens won 62 councillors (1%) and no councils. Residents Associations won 67 councillors (1%) and 1 council. And in 2008, the LibDems won 1804 councillors out of 8416 (21%) and 12 councils out of 159 (8%), while Plaid won 205 councillors (2%) and no councils.
Independents and Residents Associations are perhaps special cases as they are not unitary organisations. Leaving them aside, the highest proportion a party has won without being included in the infobox is 2.4% councillors by Plaid in 2008, or 0.6% of councils in 1999. Including independents, the highest proportion is 12% of councillors and 5% of councils in 1999. The poorest performance by one of the three main parties was Labour in 2009 with 8% of councillors and no councils.
There are no hard and fast rules for infoboxes. They are a summary. They also exist in a historical context, so they don’t just reflect that year’s results but also a broader historical narrative. So, arguably on that year’s figures alone, Labour should not have been included in the 2009 infobox, but I can see the sense in including them given they’re included in all the other years.
In terms of maintaining consistency with those previous decisions, I suggest the following. 0-2.5% of councillors: clearly do not include in infobox. 2.5-8%: probably do not include in infobox, but I recognise we’re in somewhat uncharted territory. 8-12%: unclear – this is more than Labour in 2009 (but there’s a broader narrative reason for including Labour there) and less than independents in 1999 (but they’re not a unitary group). 12-20%: still something of a grey area, but leaning towards inclusion. 20%+: definitely include in infobox. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The infobox currently doesn't match the article, article lists many con councils, 1 lab, some NOC. Infobox says many con councils, 1 libdem, 0 labour?? Also, if the infobox is including mayors in its' councils count (which is the only way I can see to get 30 for cons), then title should be Councils/Mayors.
Re the long UKIP argument: the solution is simple. If UKIP get enough voteshare/councillors, put 'em in. Until the results are in, the infobox is only to (can only) show the old results, where UKIP don't come anywhere close. 92.15.59.167 ( talk) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Previous local election articles don't have the previous numbers of councils and councillors displayed in the infobox anyway so this shouldn't really be an issue after the election - I'm guessing those numbers will be replaced with the election results once we know them.
On a related note I've noticed all the previous local election articles back to 2005 compare popular vote share with the previous year's local elections rather than the previous election in the cycle - presumably this is a valid comparison as it's a projected national share rather than the actual vote share in the set of councils and divisions/wards up in a particular year - but this article compares with the previous election in the cycle. I don't really care which way we do it, but we should at least be self-consistent. Pilchard ( talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I found that Bondegezou had gone against the above discussion and switched Labour to be 1st place despite the consensus and despite the 'wall of blue' of county council control. Why Bondegezou has done this against consensus I dodo not know but it is standard practice to have it last time the elections were actually held i.e. 2009. Doktorbuk made this point long ago and is no less correct then he was then. May I suggest to Bondegezou that this is not an appropriate way to behave as you so frequently like to point out to others. 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 16:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted a change to the infobox before seeing this chat, so sorry about that. I'm abit split now on what I think the best way forward is. I always used to think we should base the 'last election' statistics on the preceding set of local elections, regardless of the fact that the councils in question were not up for election the last time. My thinking was it is I just found it so confusing to keep track of wider trends in local elections. However, this set of local elections in particular is making me question that. These are county council elections, and politically are rather incomparable to the set of unitary authorities we last had - for one thing, I'm pretty sure the percentage of the Labour vote is going to be lower for these elections than in 2012, because traditionally county councils have been rather unfavourable to Labour victories. However, if we base the last election statistics on 2012, it will give the wrong impression that Labour has declined in support since 2012, whereas in actuality county councils are not that favourable like I said, and compared to those in 2009 they will have actually have made an improvement. Nevertheless, I'm still rather stuck on my original concern on it being rather confusing to lay readers if we do it that way. Ugh, not sure right now what the way forward is. Maybe someone has an idea for trying to meet this halfway? Redverton ( talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing the bit in the article which explains how these elections work? Are councillors elected on an SMM (AV/IR) basis, SMP (FPTP), multi-member (STV, etc) or what? Didn't see it in the 2012 article either. Are they the same everywhere? (They weren't in 2011 or 2012.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
All county councils have single member electoral divisions. This includes unitary authorities which are technically county councils - i.e. all the unitary authorities which have elections this year, except Bristol, and the Isles of Scilly. Bristol has multi-member wards, but only one member is elected in any one year (barring by-elections), and the Isles of Scilly which elects all members this year to multi-member wards. Yamor2 ( talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Unitary authorities are mixed and often reflect what the council for that area was beforehand. Authorities like the Isle of Wight are the county council turned unitary whereas many others are the old districts.
Bristol is a slightly bizarre case because it elects by thirds yet all the wards are two member so every election sees one third of the city left out, to the potential confusion of voters. (IIUC the Mayor is elected in the otherwise skip year.) Bristol is also, for reasons that elude me, electing out of cycle with the norm for ex-district unitary authorities which otherwise have their skip year in 2013 as do the districts in two-tier arrangements.
The pre 1950 situation was messier - only the multi-member university seats used STV and their by-elections were FPTP. There used to be lots of two member territorial seats that used multi-member FPTP; the last 15 or so were split in 1950. The Limited Vote's use was, erm, limited to a handful of big cities at the three elections between 1868 and 1880. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is being trolled by members of 4chan's /pol/ board, and should be semi-protected at the least.
ElectrifiedSpork ( talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Some people trolled the infobox. I try to change it but I am not good enough. I had changed it good but anyone trolled it agian. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% they are going win today more then 1 council, maybe 10 or more. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
-Agreed. This left-wing liberal bias on wikipedia is getting ridiculous.
As I understand it... Past practice is to order parties in the infobox by # councils/councillors, not vote share, so that would be, on results so far, Conservative, then LibDem, then Labour, then (if we agree to include them) UKIP. (Vote share would give a very different order, but that's first-past-the-post for you.) Changes in councils/councillors are given with the last cycle (2009's results in this case). Vote share in the infobox is usually projected national vote share, with change given with the previous year (as projected national vote share adjusts for where the elections are being held), but there's debate above on that point. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The last elections there UKIP had about 1%. maybe can change anybody that? The official results are not known yet so they get out of the infobox. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 15:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The last elections result are from United Kingdom local elections, 2009!!!!! somebody should change that :) 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a regular user of wikipedia but the overall vote quoted on the results is incorrect, that was the projected vote that the BBC came up with if the country was up for a for a general election. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.175.81.18 (
talk)
16:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Any figures? Keith-264 ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone working on a table of the results for this article?-- 82.35.251.109 ( talk) 12:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox figures for the three main parties are incorrect - they exclude Anglesey and the Conservative Party one is wrong even for England. The correct results are:
As verifiable by the BBC.
Please note the share of the vote given in the box, Labour 29%, Conservatives 25%, Ukip 23%, LibDems is NOT the actual local election results but a projection of the NATIONAL VOTE, if the whole country had voted. Please make this clear.( Coachtripfan ( talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC))
Good but this needs to be done for every year ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit. I originally wrote:
User:Moonraker12 changed this to:
User:Moonraker12 gave this reason on my user talkpage for the change: 'I don’t know where you got it from (it’s a very selective interpretation of what the source actually says) and I would suggest you double-check it with your local ERO. In the meantime I’ve altered it here, and here, because the text as it stood was advising readers to commit a criminal act, which puts WP (ie us) in an awkward legal position.'
I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit for the following reasons:
Nothing I originally wrote constitutes a 'selective interpretation of what the source actually says'. The Electoral Commission webpage which I cited ( http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses) is very clear that "If an elector is registered to vote in two different electoral areas, they are eligible to vote in local elections for the two different local councils. However, it is an offence to vote twice in any one election. Such an offence could result in a fine of up to £5,000." This means, for example, that a university student whose home is in Southampton and who studies in Newcastle can be on the electoral register in both cities and can vote in the local elections in both cities. It would, however, be an offence for the university student to vote twice in the same election (for example, in both Southampton and Newcastle in a UK general election, or a European Parliamentary election). It would not be an offence for the student to vote in both Southampton and Newcastle local elections. Another source which confirms this view is the Electoral Commission's About My Vote webpage for students ( http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/students.aspx) which clearly states:
In addition, User:Moonraker12 is wrong to write that 'It is possible to register to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) at the discretion of the local Electoral Register Office'. Registration at both addresses is an entitlement - the ERO at both councils is obliged to follow the Electoral Commission's guidance in relation to registering university students who have two addresses.
Bonus bon ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2013. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is relivent to the next local elections in the United Kingdom which is due to take place next May. -- veganfishcake ( talk) 14:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Bristol is not a District council it is a Unitary authority. There are no units of administration subordinate to it because there are no Parishes within the city. It does have the status of a Ceremonial County. I think you should change the terminology in this article to reflect that fact. Freedom1968 ( talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Have added proper election box for this page to make it consistent with very other set of local elections. I have included UKIP in this election box on the basis of conversations held on the talk pages of Talk:Next United Kingdom general election and Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election. The reason being is that these elections are less than 6months away and UKIP and the Lib Dems have been in a statistical polling tie for over 9months. Furthermore The Liberal Democrats do not tend to do as well in county council elections as compared to Metropolitan areas, whereas UKIP tend do better in County Council Elections than they do in Metropolitan Areas. Both Parties based on the polls and on their previous performance stand just as much chance of doing well as one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 02:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed that we can't really justify adding UKIP now, they need to achieve significant gains for them to be included in the info box, this has been discussed on the 2015 eection page. It has been agreed that we do not revisit the idea of UKIPs inclusion until after these results are published! That argument also applies to this page! Doktorbuk as for the 2009 EP elections, I don't get what your problem is? I mean it's like your just saying no, no, no without reading anything. I get why your doing that on this page...I agree with you but I really don't think you have behaved well on 2009 EP elections. I would like to ask others to come and look at the evidence on the talk page and contribute. We need consensus on this, out of 5 editors Doktorbuk is the only one that will not engage in the argument and simply says no. I have stood up for you Doktorbuk, I have tried to be fair but now yu are being unreasonable! Nick Nick Dancer 10:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Added figures to election box as promised! The elections last took place in 2009, so I have taken those current results and placed them as previous results on this page. Nick Nick Dancer 17:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Someone has created - I think to make a WP:POINT - an article for the 2014 local elections. I dare say that the AfD which is necessary won't go down well if I started it so can someone please do the necessary and get it deleted? doktorb words deeds 09:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, keep the article just remove UKIP. I have re-aligned the election box so that all leaders and parties are on the same row. If UKIP do well in this 2013 set of council elections, then there might be an argument for inclusion in 2014. It all depends, at the moment there is no reason to consider this until at least these results have been published. This has been discussed at great length on the 2015 election talk page. Nick Nick Dancer 11:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, it kind of was to make a point, I don't normally do that sort of thing, in fact well, I haven't done it before actually! But your behaviour on that 2009 Euro Elections page was just so unreasonable, your refusal to look at evidence, staring you in the face! And to think, I actually stook up for you! Look I don't want anyone to fall out over this, I just want to get that discussion sorted. So can you please stop being obstanant and obstructive to consensus! Nick Nick Dancer 11:35, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Yea, I'm sorry, I don't normally get angry on here but I've not known anything like it from a regular editor! Sure you get it all the time from the IPs. It just got to me. Bondegezou could you revert it, I don't want a war! Nick Nick Dancer 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I Have absolutely no problem ensuring that the 2014 local elections page goes through a deletion process once the 2009 Euro Election page is solved. I will do that right away once we sort out 2009! I hate having to do this but we seem to be unable to move on from the issue. I suggest that neither you or I make any more edits to the 2009 Euro elections page. I think this needs to be done by someone else ike Bondegezou. Once this has been done, I will start deletion process as promised, one local election at a time seems sensible! Nick Nick Dancer 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm happy to step away from this for a week, I just want to know what the action plan is....what happens next, it happened 3 years ago and it's left up in the air. That's all I want to know, I'm happy to remove myself, I just want to know what and when is going to be done! Nick Nick Dancer 12:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Nick should remove the page come what may, the 2013 eection hasn't happened yet! That said 2009 needs sorting out straight away, the issue is in the past and needs to be put in the past, especially in light od the existing page for the 2014 European Elections! Can we please sort it without Nick orDoktorbucks involvement? Removing them from the decission making resolves your issue!( talk Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 13:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now that I know we're not simply brushng the issue under the carpet and that it will be looked at again in the next few days/a week. I will in good faith start deletion! That's all I wanted, to make sure that people wouldn't think t issue would go away by the passing of time. I've made a note to revisit the page and so I will. This should give people the oppourtunity to contribute. Nick Nick Dancer 14:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
As promised deletion process is under way, if there are no objections placed on he tak page etc then the entry will automatically be deleted in a weeks time! Nick Nick Dancer 15:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, there are a fe problems on the page I mention similar to this. It is with regard to removing the Green Party and the BNP from the info box on the bassis that they only have 2 seats. The info box is a summary box, to give the headline result for those who have significant representation, the full results are posted lower down the page. To my mind 2 is no a significant number by any stretch of the imagination! Whats more there are other parties (all be it regional ones) that have got the same number of seats. What's more the ren Party had not increased their representation in 2009, they had also gained 2 seats in 2004, notice the Green Party is not included in that election box! Furthemore, if we go back to the 1999 elections we can see that UKIP had gained 3 seats (more than 2) and this was righty not deemed relevent for inclusion in the info box. I have put all this evidence on the talk page with links. There is great inconsistency here. We have agreement of 4 to 1 to remove them but Doktorbuk will only say no and is not engaging in discussion. Can other editors please come across and help us reach consensus. Nick Nick Dancer 11:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I know I'm realy sorry to have to do so but other editors are just not coming across and Doktorbuk is our ownly obstruction to consensus! I would really appreciate it if you Bondegezou could come over and look at things. We have consensus of 4 to 1 and it's just getting ridiculous! Please help us! Nick Nick Dancer 11:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I think since the 2009 Euro Election issue is in the past we should seek to put it to bed straight away, I have suggested that neither myself or Doktorbuk make the edit on the basis you have just described! I have promised Doktorbuk that I will seek deletion of the 2014 Local elections page on the basis that we should deal with one set of local elections at a time, 3013 hasn't even happened yet. I will do this once the 2009 issue is finally put to bed! Could you please look at this Bondegezou since you are not involved in the heated debate and are therefore more impartial. As you say Rrius' proposals are sensible and now have consensus. Many Thanks Nick Nick Dancer 12:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, thank you but where do we go from here? It's all up in the air and it happened 3 years ago. All I want to know is where do we go from here? Nick Nick Dancer 12:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, that debate has moved on a lot...but has got nowhere! I have to agree with Nick in that neither he or Doktorbuk should be involved in any further edits! I also agree that this issue needs to be resolved! There is no reason to delay making a decision on this issue if the 2 people in dispute are removed from the equation! Lets get this sorted, Rrius has suggested something that is acceptable and sensible to all of us! I don't see why it can't be done! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 13:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Nick Dancer has kindly added last election numbers to the infobox. However, these are for 2009. Most of the 2013 elections were last held in 2009, so I see the logic. However, the articles for the 2012 and 2011 local elections use the preceding year for their comparisons. Following that example, the last election numbers here should be the 2012 results, not the 2009 results. Thoughts? Bondegezou ( talk) 17:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's right. These 2013 elections are county council elections. The 2012 elections were predominantly Metropolitan Councils. The last time these seats were contested was in 2009. I'd say keep it as it is, so that we're comparing like with like. All wards are up for election more or less every 4 years (some exceptions). So if I'm not mistaken this is pretty much an exact rerun (seat by seat) of 2009. Nick Nick Dancer 18:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Great stuff Doktorbuk, we have some form of agreement, it seems that the best thing to do is use the 2009 figures and carefully make necessary adjustments, as like we say it is not an exact replica of 2009. Nick Nick Dancer 13:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
User:86.156.154.192 is making a lot of changes, which are breaking the infobox, and doesn't seem to be answering User:Bondegezou's entirely reasonable request to discuss the purpose of the changes. I suggest we revert them -- Cabalamat ( talk) 18:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
The above is incorrect. Just three cover a WHOLE ceremonial county (Bristol, Isle of Wight and Northumberland), and seven are authorities with the same name as a (slightly) larger ceremonial county (just the council of the Isles of Scilly isn't).
Anyway, the comparison to ceremonial counties does not add anything. What should perhaps be explained is that, technically, 6 are county councils where the district council has been abolished, Bristol is a district council where the county council has been abolished, and the council of the Isles of Scilly is sui generis. Yamor2 ( talk) 21:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
35 councils in England, 1 council in Wales, 2 Directly Elected Mayors | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
This subject has been raised before on other pages, such as the 2015 General Election page. The suggestion has been rightfully dismissed on that page, as the general election is 2 and a half years away and current polling with current trends can not justify something so far into the future. However, on this page and this page alone (at least for now) I would say that there is a strong enough argument to add UKIP and it's leader to the info box. The first reason relates to polling, UKIP have been in a statistical tie (within the margin of error) of the Lib Dems for the vast majority of 2012, (for around 9months). UKIP have even polled significantly ahead of the Lib Dems on occasion in a variety of polls over that period. Since the local elections are only 5months away, I would say the "flash in the pan" test has been passed and that it would be highly presumptuous to suggest otherwise. Unless someone has a crystal ball that will tell us that UKIP's poll ratings will go through the floor before this election, then I would say this 1st argument is valid. The second argument and perhaps the more significant argument is that UKIP and the Lib Dems will be standing a similar number of candidates. Currently UKIP have selected more candidates than the Lib Dems. For the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 both UKIP and the Lib Dems were included in the info box as they both had 24 candidates each, out of a possible 41. Both parties were removed from the info box after the election had taken place as neither party gained a commissioner. Therefore, for now at least, I propose we add UKIP to the box because their poll ratings are sufficiently consistent and the election is getting fairly close. UKIP are fielding enough candidates to be considered as relevant as the Lib Dems, many more than the smaller parties! Previous results are not the only factor we should consider here if we are to reflect reality. Yes the previous election is always a good indicator cetris paribus but the point is all other things have to be equal and they are not, therefore we must not over emphasise the previous result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 20:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The info box is not just for previous results. The Green Party are not putting up a large number of candidates, nowhere near as many as UKIP and the Lib Dems. The Greens barely manage 1/3 of what UKIP and The Lib Dems achieve in public opinion polls. This change is being made/suggested on the basis that UKIP and The Lib Dems are in a statistical polling tie and have been for quite some time. You would need a crystal ball to suggest that this 9month long polling tie is going to break in the next few months. Also the number of candidates is key, look at the PCC elections and go back into the history, we have a precedent here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 23:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I am in favor of the motion. I must make it clear though, that we have had discussions on this for the 2014 and 2015 elections and we mutually agreed not to make a decision on those elections until this 2013 election has passed. So my support for adding UKIP to the info box is categorically not to be extended to 2014 or 2015, it is too early to make those decisions! As far as I'm concerned UKIP have ticked all the boxes (apart from their lack of current seats) but we have to reflect reality, we can't simply base these things on the past, nor can we peer into a crystal ball, lets work with the facts. We have the statistical polling tie and the fact that UKIP have just as many/more candidates than the Lib Dems (depending on which council). These 2 facts mean that UKIP are just as much in contention as the Lib Dems. I don't see the Green Party argument as credible, the only claim is they won 18seats, big woop, how many candidates have they got? Nowhere near enough to be considered big contenders! What are the Green Party polling? Little more than the BNP and Respect, about 3%. Nick Nick Dancer 23:34, 04 January 2013 (UTC)
@ Doktorbuk I just want to clarify that for this one election I am in favor of UKIP being included for the reasons discussed. I get what your saying when it comes to the later elections, part of UKIP proving themselves involves a strong performance in this 2013 election! However, we would not be reflecting reality if we simply showed the result of the last election. Yes, the last election is very important and ceteris paribus I agree with you in principle but, that's the thing, the reality of the situation has changed, in terms of polling and candidates standing, this in turn affects the election, this is not using a crystal ball, this is simply reporting the facts before us! Nick Nick Dancer 23:57, 04 January 2013 (UTC)
I support the change. However, I would be happy to see the decision reversed if UKIPs poll ratings consistently plummet for say 6 consecutive weeks. Also if the numbers of candidates change significantly, the decision may need to be reviewed. Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 00:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't see why this edit has been reversed. I'm in agreement with Sheffno1gunner's suggestion, to only remove UKIP from the info box if and only if we can see that UKIPs poll ratings have plummeted for a significant period of time. Only if you had a Crystal ball could you suggest that this consistent trend of a statistical tie with the Lib Dems will end before the May elections. However if UKIP end up loosing enough of their candidates and their poll ratings drop enough for at least a month, then yes we should remove them from the page! We are not here to just summaries the previous result, a page already exists for that! Summarizing the previous result is often key but when reality changes, we must reflect it! The simple fact of the matter is that UKIP are just as much in contention as the Lib Dems based on the dramatic increase in the number of candidates fielded and due to the poll ratings. Also Doktorbuk, political betting is not exactly a reputable source is it? Non of us on here are talking about odds or betting or using a crystal ball! We're talking about reflecting the current reality on the ground! Yes the previous result is a big part of that but it is not the be all and end all! I will reverse your edit, the consensus is clearly not with you on this one. Nick Nick Dancer 15:32, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again, I just wish to reconfirm that I am in favour of the addition of UKIP to the info box as the evidence presented is indeed convincing. I must once again reiterate though, that if the statistical tie between UKIP and the Lib Dems is broken for a period of 6consecutive weeks then we should reverse the change. Breaking of the statistical tie does not mean that UKIP poll say 1 or 2% less than the Lib Dems consistently, breaking of the statistical tie means that UKIP would no longer be polling within the margin of error of the Lib Dems for those 6consecutive weeks! Also a dramatic reduction in candidates fielded would also warrant removing the party from the box, as things stand though, they should stay for this one election. All other future elections must be looked at on their own merits, we can not make such decissions on those until after this election and even then we can only work one at a time. I hope this makes it absolutely clear that the addition of UKIP to this info box does not give anyone the right to try and add them to the 2015 general election box, we are not making a decision on that until after the 2014 elections! Leave this info box with UKIP in it for now, if the facts change, then so should the page! Right now, there is significant evidence for their inclusion! Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 16:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Did doktorbuk just start an edit war? That is a shame, I would have expected better from him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 17:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Your stance is quite clear but you describe it a bit differently! I accept what you say about past election results which immediately invalidates adding UKIP to other pages until after this election at the earliest. However we are here and now and we do have enough evidence to make this change, as others seem to agree to! UKIP didn't lose seats in 2012, in net terms they held the same no of seats, they gained some seats but they also lost the same number of seats as they gained. The seats they lost were Tory defectors anyway, so they didn't loose any elected representatives, so that is an inaccurate claim you have made! UKIP have been winning local by-elections and showing some very strong 2nd places as well, sure you can pick examples where they haven't if you want but by and large they are gaining vote share in large amounts at local level! Your argument for opinion polls is weak! National opinion polls apply for all forms of election apart from European Elections. They are weighted as such as well! Notice how pollsters ask a number of questions and actually it is clear in their methodology that there is a direct link between their polling for local and general elections, to suggest otherwise would be original research because you yourself would have to do correlation tests to disprove that! Again, the greens have a very small number of candidates nationwide, UKIP and the Lib Dems have a sufficient number to put them in contention the Greens simply dont! The Greens lead Brighton council but do not have overall control, on the other hand UKIP have majority control of Ramsey council! Your Green Party argument is irrelevant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.12.45 ( talk) 21:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Fine, for now I accept most of what you 2 say but I must correct you on something! You say that UKIP have not been in a ststistical polling tie for most of 2012, I think you misunderstand what that means. A ststistical tie does not mean that they are achieving the same percentage, or that the 3rd place position is consistently changing! A statistical polling tie is where they are within the margin of error, this has been the case since early March 2012, as in most polls UKIP have been 1/2% behind the Lib Dems (sometimes it goes higher then that but the vast majority is between 1 and 2). 1/2% is within the standard margin of error for opinion polls by pollsters own admittion, the margin of error is generally between 2 and 4% for most polsters, generally 3% is the average margin of error! So please do not try and over simplify things! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.32.3 ( talk) 17:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 11:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I have added the UK Independence Party to the infro box due to a change in circumstances since the last discussion. The change in circumstances as well as preexisting arguments warrants the addition of UKIP to info box because:
Also doktorb, I understand that this might be hard for you but you can't let your own self confessed political views cloud your judgement! This is a very reasonable proposition, which is clearly justified 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
− −
I agree not to revert your edit as I do not want to breach Wikipedia policy. Others need to engage in this discussion. You also need to address the points I have raised which you have failed to do so! Your only real defense that has any weigh is that no one else has agreed to it yet! 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 11:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
In the light of repeated issues around anonymous editing of this article, problems that will only increase as we get nearer the elections, would it be appropriate to seek semi-protection for this article? Bondegezou ( talk) 11:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
As per basic Wikipedia policy, we need to be guided by reliable sources. When it comes to the coverage of different political parties, the BBC helpfully publish and explain their guidelines: see [1] for these forthcoming local elections. It would seem to me sensible for us equally to be guided by those. Those very clearly state that the main parties in the English local elections are the Conservative, Labour and LibDems. Then they cover smaller parties, with specific notes on UKIP and the Greens. They explain that guidance is based on four factors: "performance at the last equivalent election (eg the county council elections in 2009) in terms of representation and/or share of the vote."; "performance in subsequent elections, where relevant"; "other relevant evidence of current electoral support"; and "the number of candidates a party fields in the election". Bondegezou ( talk) 11:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
BBC Criteria
I agree that we should reflect the below statement that you quoted:
My above argument shows that the BBC criteria is fulfilled. I have given sound reasoning for this change and I expect it to be made as and when the number of candidates issue is resolved by the opening of nominations! Thank you! 81.149.185.174 ( talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 13:33, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
References
Daniel Pickford-Gordon here. Why do only a few have "Details" so far for 2013? More! I don't think that Metropolitan County Councils should be segregated from Non-Metropolitan County Councils. A more systematic way of doing things with regard to this page and other such pages is required, i would say. Etcetera. Maybe put all of the individual ones, split it up more, expand, even if it's a long list. General local elections page? I have an amount of information, on the Topix United Kingdom Forum, i've made a number of posts: List Of Posts http://www.topix.net/forum/world/united-kingdom/T367RKHF7P0991G1C 212.50.171.223 ( talk) 19:00, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Daniel Pickford-Gordon
I feel that the addition of a map of England and Wales showing which areas have elections would greatly improve this article! Obviously we would have to label the areas where there are Mayoral contests differently. What are people's thought? Anyone able to do this? Sheffno1gunner ( talk) 10:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I try and do election maps whenever I have some time - this one shows where elections are being held in 2013 - non-metropolitan counties in light green, unitary authorities in orange, mayoral elections in purple, and no elections in light grey. This doesn't have Anglesey as I haven't got a map of English and Welsh council areas together. Spiritofsussex ( talk) 11:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
I think we can use this map for the England section straight away. If no one objects I'll add it later today. David ( talk) 09:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Many of the councils which are up have published their statements of persons nominated, and it appears that UKIP have more candidates than the Liberal Democrats; and a similar amount to Labour. This is surely notable in regard to Wikipedia policy (please correct me if I am wrong) therefore I propose that UKIP are added to the infobox now so that the article remains both impartial and up to date in regard to recent developments in the lead-up to these particular elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.199.188 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Can I perhaps suggest this stance. Barring an absolute miracle, UKIP will do well enough in the elections to be added to the summary box after the elections. Unless they win nothing at all, or just one seat out of the hundreds available, I'm happy to accept UKIP in the summary box after polling day. Putting them there *before* assumes that the status would be the same afterwards, and that breaks CRYSTAL and UNDUEBIAS. So let's wait. Not because we're ganging up against UKIP; but because we're trying to be reasonable. doktorb words deeds 19:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
To put this in perspective, I looked back at earlier articles. The earliest UK local elections article to have an infobox is United Kingdom local elections, 1999. Every year since then has had an infobox with the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats and those have also always been the top three parties. The closest results between the bottom of those three and the top performing others were as follows.
The two most marginal cases must be 1999 and 2009. In 1999, the LibDems won 2609 councillors out of a total of 13332 (i.e. 20%), and 20 councils out of 362 (6%). Independents won 1551 councillors (12%) and 18 councils (5%). The SNP won 208 councillors (2%) and 1 council (0.3%). Plaid Cymru won 205 councillors (2%) and 2 councils (0.6%).
In 2009, Labour won 178 councillors out of 2362 (8%) and no councils out of 34. Independents won 97 councillors (4%) and no councils. The Greens won 18 councillors (1%) and no councils.
Other notable cases are 2006: the LibDems won 909 councillors out of 4418 (21%) and 13 councils out of 176 (7%). The BNP won 32 councillors (1%) and no councils. Residents Associations won 35 councillors (1%) and no councils. In 2007, Labour won 1877 councillors out of 10479 (18%) and 34 councils out of 227 (15%). The Greens won 62 councillors (1%) and no councils. Residents Associations won 67 councillors (1%) and 1 council. And in 2008, the LibDems won 1804 councillors out of 8416 (21%) and 12 councils out of 159 (8%), while Plaid won 205 councillors (2%) and no councils.
Independents and Residents Associations are perhaps special cases as they are not unitary organisations. Leaving them aside, the highest proportion a party has won without being included in the infobox is 2.4% councillors by Plaid in 2008, or 0.6% of councils in 1999. Including independents, the highest proportion is 12% of councillors and 5% of councils in 1999. The poorest performance by one of the three main parties was Labour in 2009 with 8% of councillors and no councils.
There are no hard and fast rules for infoboxes. They are a summary. They also exist in a historical context, so they don’t just reflect that year’s results but also a broader historical narrative. So, arguably on that year’s figures alone, Labour should not have been included in the 2009 infobox, but I can see the sense in including them given they’re included in all the other years.
In terms of maintaining consistency with those previous decisions, I suggest the following. 0-2.5% of councillors: clearly do not include in infobox. 2.5-8%: probably do not include in infobox, but I recognise we’re in somewhat uncharted territory. 8-12%: unclear – this is more than Labour in 2009 (but there’s a broader narrative reason for including Labour there) and less than independents in 1999 (but they’re not a unitary group). 12-20%: still something of a grey area, but leaning towards inclusion. 20%+: definitely include in infobox. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
The infobox currently doesn't match the article, article lists many con councils, 1 lab, some NOC. Infobox says many con councils, 1 libdem, 0 labour?? Also, if the infobox is including mayors in its' councils count (which is the only way I can see to get 30 for cons), then title should be Councils/Mayors.
Re the long UKIP argument: the solution is simple. If UKIP get enough voteshare/councillors, put 'em in. Until the results are in, the infobox is only to (can only) show the old results, where UKIP don't come anywhere close. 92.15.59.167 ( talk) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Previous local election articles don't have the previous numbers of councils and councillors displayed in the infobox anyway so this shouldn't really be an issue after the election - I'm guessing those numbers will be replaced with the election results once we know them.
On a related note I've noticed all the previous local election articles back to 2005 compare popular vote share with the previous year's local elections rather than the previous election in the cycle - presumably this is a valid comparison as it's a projected national share rather than the actual vote share in the set of councils and divisions/wards up in a particular year - but this article compares with the previous election in the cycle. I don't really care which way we do it, but we should at least be self-consistent. Pilchard ( talk) 15:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I found that Bondegezou had gone against the above discussion and switched Labour to be 1st place despite the consensus and despite the 'wall of blue' of county council control. Why Bondegezou has done this against consensus I dodo not know but it is standard practice to have it last time the elections were actually held i.e. 2009. Doktorbuk made this point long ago and is no less correct then he was then. May I suggest to Bondegezou that this is not an appropriate way to behave as you so frequently like to point out to others. 213.120.148.60 ( talk) 16:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
I just reverted a change to the infobox before seeing this chat, so sorry about that. I'm abit split now on what I think the best way forward is. I always used to think we should base the 'last election' statistics on the preceding set of local elections, regardless of the fact that the councils in question were not up for election the last time. My thinking was it is I just found it so confusing to keep track of wider trends in local elections. However, this set of local elections in particular is making me question that. These are county council elections, and politically are rather incomparable to the set of unitary authorities we last had - for one thing, I'm pretty sure the percentage of the Labour vote is going to be lower for these elections than in 2012, because traditionally county councils have been rather unfavourable to Labour victories. However, if we base the last election statistics on 2012, it will give the wrong impression that Labour has declined in support since 2012, whereas in actuality county councils are not that favourable like I said, and compared to those in 2009 they will have actually have made an improvement. Nevertheless, I'm still rather stuck on my original concern on it being rather confusing to lay readers if we do it that way. Ugh, not sure right now what the way forward is. Maybe someone has an idea for trying to meet this halfway? Redverton ( talk) 20:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Am I missing the bit in the article which explains how these elections work? Are councillors elected on an SMM (AV/IR) basis, SMP (FPTP), multi-member (STV, etc) or what? Didn't see it in the 2012 article either. Are they the same everywhere? (They weren't in 2011 or 2012.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
All county councils have single member electoral divisions. This includes unitary authorities which are technically county councils - i.e. all the unitary authorities which have elections this year, except Bristol, and the Isles of Scilly. Bristol has multi-member wards, but only one member is elected in any one year (barring by-elections), and the Isles of Scilly which elects all members this year to multi-member wards. Yamor2 ( talk) 17:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Unitary authorities are mixed and often reflect what the council for that area was beforehand. Authorities like the Isle of Wight are the county council turned unitary whereas many others are the old districts.
Bristol is a slightly bizarre case because it elects by thirds yet all the wards are two member so every election sees one third of the city left out, to the potential confusion of voters. (IIUC the Mayor is elected in the otherwise skip year.) Bristol is also, for reasons that elude me, electing out of cycle with the norm for ex-district unitary authorities which otherwise have their skip year in 2013 as do the districts in two-tier arrangements.
The pre 1950 situation was messier - only the multi-member university seats used STV and their by-elections were FPTP. There used to be lots of two member territorial seats that used multi-member FPTP; the last 15 or so were split in 1950. The Limited Vote's use was, erm, limited to a handful of big cities at the three elections between 1868 and 1880. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The article is being trolled by members of 4chan's /pol/ board, and should be semi-protected at the least.
ElectrifiedSpork ( talk) 17:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Some people trolled the infobox. I try to change it but I am not good enough. I had changed it good but anyone trolled it agian. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 18:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we should add UKIP because they have in the general elections polls 14% and in the locale elections polls 22% they are going win today more then 1 council, maybe 10 or more. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 18:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
-Agreed. This left-wing liberal bias on wikipedia is getting ridiculous.
As I understand it... Past practice is to order parties in the infobox by # councils/councillors, not vote share, so that would be, on results so far, Conservative, then LibDem, then Labour, then (if we agree to include them) UKIP. (Vote share would give a very different order, but that's first-past-the-post for you.) Changes in councils/councillors are given with the last cycle (2009's results in this case). Vote share in the infobox is usually projected national vote share, with change given with the previous year (as projected national vote share adjusts for where the elections are being held), but there's debate above on that point. Bondegezou ( talk) 11:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The last elections there UKIP had about 1%. maybe can change anybody that? The official results are not known yet so they get out of the infobox. 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 15:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC) The last elections result are from United Kingdom local elections, 2009!!!!! somebody should change that :) 81.58.144.30 ( talk) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Not a regular user of wikipedia but the overall vote quoted on the results is incorrect, that was the projected vote that the BBC came up with if the country was up for a for a general election. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.175.81.18 (
talk)
16:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Any figures? Keith-264 ( talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Is anyone working on a table of the results for this article?-- 82.35.251.109 ( talk) 12:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox figures for the three main parties are incorrect - they exclude Anglesey and the Conservative Party one is wrong even for England. The correct results are:
As verifiable by the BBC.
Please note the share of the vote given in the box, Labour 29%, Conservatives 25%, Ukip 23%, LibDems is NOT the actual local election results but a projection of the NATIONAL VOTE, if the whole country had voted. Please make this clear.( Coachtripfan ( talk) 21:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC))
Good but this needs to be done for every year ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC))
I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit. I originally wrote:
User:Moonraker12 changed this to:
User:Moonraker12 gave this reason on my user talkpage for the change: 'I don’t know where you got it from (it’s a very selective interpretation of what the source actually says) and I would suggest you double-check it with your local ERO. In the meantime I’ve altered it here, and here, because the text as it stood was advising readers to commit a criminal act, which puts WP (ie us) in an awkward legal position.'
I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit for the following reasons:
Nothing I originally wrote constitutes a 'selective interpretation of what the source actually says'. The Electoral Commission webpage which I cited ( http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/faq/voting-and-registration/i-have-two-homes.-can-i-register-to-vote-at-both-addresses) is very clear that "If an elector is registered to vote in two different electoral areas, they are eligible to vote in local elections for the two different local councils. However, it is an offence to vote twice in any one election. Such an offence could result in a fine of up to £5,000." This means, for example, that a university student whose home is in Southampton and who studies in Newcastle can be on the electoral register in both cities and can vote in the local elections in both cities. It would, however, be an offence for the university student to vote twice in the same election (for example, in both Southampton and Newcastle in a UK general election, or a European Parliamentary election). It would not be an offence for the student to vote in both Southampton and Newcastle local elections. Another source which confirms this view is the Electoral Commission's About My Vote webpage for students ( http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/students.aspx) which clearly states:
In addition, User:Moonraker12 is wrong to write that 'It is possible to register to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) at the discretion of the local Electoral Register Office'. Registration at both addresses is an entitlement - the ERO at both councils is obliged to follow the Electoral Commission's guidance in relation to registering university students who have two addresses.
Bonus bon ( talk) 22:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2013. 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.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)