Talk:2013 United Kingdom local elections

Contested deletion

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 it is a Unitary authority

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)

Election Box

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)

Two things. If you were genuinely concerned about adding the election box, you would have ensured that the councillor figures etc. were filled in, and if you had done, you would have realised that UKIP have no councillors at all, anywhere. Secondly, using the opinion polls to guess the results falls foul of WP:OR. I've noticed - because it's obvious - that UKIP supporters are engaging in "mission creep" all over the place and it doesn't work. National opinion polls for the general election in 2015 do not justify adding them to the article on local elections in 2013. It's that simple. As it happens - the Green Party, the BNP, TUSC and various residents associations all have more councillors than UKIP, and would therefore have more of a place on the summary box than them were we following that line of logic. doktorb _words^deeds 06:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree: opinion polls about how people intend to vote in the next general election have limited value here, an article on a wide set of local elections. As discussed on Talk:Next United Kingdom general election, practice on Wikipedia models practice by reliable sources like the BBC where coverage of parties at a forthcoming election is heavily weighted on their performance at the last equivalent elections. UKIP have no councils or directly-elected mayors and very few councillors. There is no reason to include them in a summary infobox. We don't have to have an infobox and perhaps there's no need for one now, but if we do have one, the obvious parties to include are Con, Lab and LD. After the elections, the infobox can of course reflect the actual results. Bondegezou (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

PS: Claims that UKIP and the LibDems have been in "a statistical polling tie for over 9months" are erroneous, misunderstand confidence intervals and put too much weight on one particular daily poll whose methodology and results have been questioned. Bondegezou (talk) 08:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

So, there are 27 county councils having elections. 26 of these are currently controlled by the Conservatives, and one has no overall control. The Tories are the largest party in all 27. The Liberal Democrats are the second largest party in 21 councils, Labour in 5 and in Staffordshire, the LibDems and UKIP are in joint second place. UKIP only has any representation on 5 out of the 27. Bondegezou (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There are also 8 unitary authorities in England having elections. 3 are controlled by the Tories, 1 by Labour, 3 have no overall control and the special case of Scilly is run by independents. Ignoring Scilly, the Tories are the largest party in 4, LD in 2, Labour in 1. The LibDems are the second largest party in 5, the Tories in 1 and Labour in 1. UKIP only has any representation on 1 council (Wiltshire). Bondegezou (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One Welsh council is having an election: this is currently hung, with an independent group the largest party, Plaid Cymru second and no UKIP representation at all. There will be 2 Mayoral elections: currently, one is a Tory (Labour was second; no UKIP candidate stood) and one an English Democrat (an independent was second; no UKIP candidate stood). On the basis of all that, it seems to me preposterous to have an infobox listing Conservative, Labour, LibDem and UKIP. In these contests, the main parties are clearly Conservative, LibDem and Labour. There is no need for a 4th party, but the English Democrats have a stronger case to be that 4th party than UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 10:16, 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)

The next time anyone suggests adding UKIP to the election box, I suggest this summary of 2012 local by-elections is relevant. Over the course of the year, UKIP did not win a single local by-election (compared to 3 for the Greens and 32 for the LibDems) and saw a loss of 2 seats. Their overall vote share was 6.1%, above the Greens' 3.5%, but well below the LibDems' 19.2%. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Election, 2014

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)

I don't have a problem with a 2014 article -- there needs to be one sooner or later -- but I have edited it to remove undue prominence for UKIP and to make other corrections. Bondegezou (talk) 10:28, 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)

Have you planned to include all the elections set for 2014? Have you considered expanding the article to anything more than the summary box? Because I know you set up that page just to make a point, and now we're lumbered with an article which will gather dust for two years for no good reason. Incidentally, yesterday there was three local council by-elections in which UKIP stood, and they lost all three of them. Not so much fanfare now for changing the rules, is there? doktorb _words^deeds 11:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree we've had a lot of fruitless discussion pushing a UKIP agenda that is not sustainable under Wikipedia policy on OR, RS, UNDUE etc. However, we will have a 2014 local elections article at some point. Having a short article now with some basic information -- when, who can vote, what elections are up (this last needs to be done) -- does no harm and provides something useful for readers. (Whether it has an infobox at all or not, I'm neutral on.) Perhaps, however, we should move this discussion there. Let's have an AfD if appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 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)

I would remind all to read and consider WP:AGF. Nick, your language above is not consistent with WP:AGF and not productive. None of these current disputes are of a crucial nature. Perhaps all of us should consider stepping away from editing these articles for a period if we feel emotions taking over so. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 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)

On that basis Nick, can you ensure the article goes through a deletion process please? doktorb _words^deeds 12:08, 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)

No. That is not appropriate. Wikipedia does not work in that manner. You can't trade edits on one page for actions on another. There is no urgency here: neither issue needs to be resolved this week, or this month. Nick, I heartily recommend that you step away from all this for a week. Doktorbuk, personally, I'm happy with the 2014 article, but I have no problem with you nominating it for AfD. But any further discussion should be on its Talk page, not here. Bondegezou (talk) 12:36, 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)

European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom)

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)

Nick, why are you discussing that article here? That doesn't help the situation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:35, 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)

Having looked at the situation, my view is that there is no urgent need for change and that a number of editors would do well to step away from the situation for a period, allow time for reflection, and read WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 12:12, 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)

Nick, you've asked me to look at this and I have. There's no point asking me again because you didn't like my answer last time. Bondegezou (talk) 12:38, 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)

Last election

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)

This is another perennial problem and one which I have fought over many years. I prefer comparing "like with like", so when I created Preston local elections and everything from it, I ensured that the 2012 elections were compared with 2008 and so on and so on. When I create authority specific articles, I ensure the results are always compared with the corresponding elections, not the previous year.

HOWEVER, some editors don't like this, and often cite the BBC and others who tend not to like this either. Because some sources compare year-by-year, not like-for-like, editors can get into tussles with vote share and changes. I always ensure that I add at every possible point something like "Councillors standing for election in Year Z were first elected in Year Z-4 and vote share changes are compared on that basis". This defuses the eagerness with which some editors come to convert everything into year-on-year.

For once, therefore, it looks like I agree with you! Elections should be compared like for like. Therefore the 2009 elections are being "re run" in 2013 (with some exceptions, I think, Stoke perhaps?) doktorb _words^deeds 05:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Anglesey is another exception, as these are the 2012 elections that were delayed a year, so last held in 2008. The point I would make it that the percentage figures given in the infobox at present are the BBC's projected national vote share. That is, they are not raw numbers, but are already adjusted to reflect that different elections happen in different years. So, if using those figures, a comparison with 2012 makes as much sense as with 2009. If using just councillors/councils, then there's more logic to the 2009 comparison. Bondegezou (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm already ahead of you on that :). I'd be more comfortable with councillors/councils compared with 2009, than anything which else, as the alternative might give a false impression of the variable strengths of parties (and lord knows we've got enough trouble with that as it is ʘ-ʘ) doktorb _words^deeds 11:24, 8 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)

Changes by User:86.156.154.192 on 10 Dec 2012

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)

5 unitary authorities covering ceremonial counties, and 3 others?

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)

Addition of UKIP to the info box

Early January Discussions

United Kingdom local elections, 2013

2 May 2013
35 councils in England, 1 council in Wales, 2 Directly Elected Mayors
First party Second party   Leader David Cameron Nick Clegg Party Conservative Liberal Democrats Leader since 6 December 2005 18 December 2007 Last election 38% 28% Councils 30 1 Councillors 1531 484   Third party Fourth party   Nigel Farage Leader Ed Miliband Nigel Farage Party Labour UKIP Leader since 25 September 2010 27 September 2006 Last election 23% 1% Councils 0 0 Councillors 178 7

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)

Adding UKIP to the infobox now is surely a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Going in to this election, the Green Party are defending far more seats (17 in the County councils, and up to 2 in Bristol), whilst UKIP are only defending 8. And Independents have more seats than both parties put together. If UKIP are in the infobox before the election then the Greens should also be there. Bouncelot (talk) 22:18, 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)

The infobox is to summarise the result of the most recent election. I agree with Nick (to coin a phrase), it's too early to make a decision about UKIP at the moment. One thing is clear, proven by the analysis at the end of this post, in 2012 the LibDems increased their representation at local government level whilst UKIP didn't, and that's perhaps very important in the context of the decision we're discussing 0 http://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2013/01/01/con-in-lead-in-local-by-elections-in-2012-with-ukip-on-6-13-percent/ doktorb _words^deeds 23:42, 4 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 agree with both of you. There are very good reasons why we don't have UKIP on these pages, but this is a debate on which we've wandered around many times already. Let us wait until the elections in May (June?) 2013 before we make a decision doktorb _words^deeds 00:58, 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)

No, let's be clear of my stance. I accept the addition of UKIP based on two main principles. First - past election results. I've shown that in 2012, UKIP lost seats, whilst LibDems gained seats. Secondly - opinion poll results for the specific elections dealt with for this article. As there have only been general election polls, we have no evidence (other than local by-elections) to UKIP support *specifically for local councils*. I don't care that UKIP are in a tie in opinion polls, because a) these are polls for general elections, for which people choose different parties for specific reasons, and b) the UKIP results in 2012 at local elections showed them lose seats. There is no place for the Greens (who actually run Brighton council) so there can't possibly be a place for UKIP (who don't run a single one). I can only change my mind if the situation changes doktorb _words^deeds 21:12, 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)

How many seats did UKIP win in the 2009 elections which are being defended/fought in 2013? National opinion polls ask the question "If there was a general election tomorrow, how would you vote?", which means that they can't be used to second guess the results in local elections, as they are very different beasts. The numbers of candidates needed to "win" council elections is different in each town, so your figure justification has to be taken into context (for example, it takes 50-odd to win a majority in some ex-mets, only 20-odd to win a majority in boroughs). As the figures I linked to earlier proved, in 2012 UKIP gained 6% of the vote in local elections and lost seats, and as in 2009 they didn't win many County seats, it all proves to evidence against including them in the infobox doktorb _words^deeds 21:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Doktorbuk for a number of reasons. I do accept that strong polling can be a reason for including a party (see the infobox for Italian general election, 2013 for an example). However, there are problems with the argument made above for UKIP. Claims of a statistical polling tie with the LibDems through the vast majority of 2012 are simply not true. For most of 2012, the LibDems have been polling higher; UKIP have only been polling at a similar level in the most reliable phone polls for a shorter period. As Doktorbuk has pointed out, those polls are about voting intention for the general election and people often vote differently at local elections, so there's a mismatch. (If we see a poll on local election voting intention, that will be much more significant.)

In any election article, who gets elected matters more than vote share. While Italy uses proportional representation, so a certain level of support guarantees seats won, these elections are under first-past-the-post. UKIP could be getting 13% in these elections and not win a single seat. UKIP do not do well from the voting system -- personally, I think that's a poor state of affairs, but that's the reality we're describing.

As we've discussed on other UK election results, who should go in the infobox also reflects the results last time. UKIP did terribly in the 2012 local elections and before. They did less well than the Greens. Or we can look at local by-election results: consider this summary of all 2012 local by-elections. Over the course of the year, UKIP did not win a single local by-election (compared to 3 for the Greens and 32 for the LibDems) and saw a loss of 2 seats. Their overall vote share was 6.1%, above the Greens' 3.5%, but well below the LibDems' 19.2%.

Those two local by-elections losses where at the end of the year when UKIP were polling well in general election voting intentions, demonstrating why this question cannot be answered simply on recent general election voting intention polling. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

So, yes, general election voting intention polling has been good for UKIP in the last few months, but given a voting system that works against them, given no success in local by-elections, given no polling on local election voting intention, given a terrible performance last time, given they're not defending much, I see no reason to add UKIP to the infobox now. Bondegezou (talk) 09:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

What would really persuade me is (going back to basic Wikipedia policy), reliable source citations predicting UKIP will make significant gains. That should always be what guides us and that's what's most noticeably missing in the above discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 10:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not found any survey for specifically the County Council elections, which might make that difficult. doktorb _words^deeds 10:40, 6 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 know what a "statistical tie" means. I suggest you are mistaken for two reasons. Firstly, you are giving too much weight to the YouGov poll, which is repeated frequently, but has proven less accurate than phone polls. Secondly, when a poll has been performed frequently, we can combine poll results and reduce the margin of error (compare the method in Rubin GJ, Potts HWW, Michie S (2010). "The impact of communications about swine flu (influenza A H1N1v) on public responses to the outbreak: Results from 36 national telephone surveys in the UK." Health Technology Assessment, 14(34), 183-266).

None of which matters because it's not up to us to interpret the polls: we should report what reliable sources say. If we have a number of independent RS reports talking about UKIP being a major player in the 2013 local elections, then we should pay attention to that over our feelings of what the polls mean. Quite possibly we will see those as the elections get nearer, but that's what should drive editing changes, not the discussion above. Bondegezou (talk) 22:32, 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)

Late March

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:

• UKIP fielding more candidates than LibDems (over 2000 of a possible 2500), meanwhile Lab and Con are contesting every seat
• UKIPs standing in UK polls, particularly English polls (These are English only elections) puts them firmly ahead of the Liberal Democrats in England and at least level pegging (if not firmly ahead) in every recent UK wide poll)
• The London Assembly & Mayoral elections are of total irrelevance for assessing previous electoral performance as these local elections do not include London at all. it is mostly English counties and a few mayoral local contests
• Last time there was any English only elections at county level was the PCC elections in November, whereby UKIP actually beat the Liberal Democrats, please see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20373755
• 1 opposition argument might be that "UKIP don't currently control a single council" (except from Ramsey), need I point out that in the context of this election, neither do Labour!
• National media now treat UKIP as 1 of the main parties during elections, the most recent example of this was the campaign for the Eastleigh by-election, 2013 where all 4 parties were mentioned in equal measure in all sections of the media from the very beginning of the campaign. Whether people call it a protest vote or not is irrelevant, the Lib Dems use to be the main protest vote, some might say the Lib Dems have lost the unappealing label of the "Dustbin of British Politics" and given it to UKIP. Narrative doesn't really matter, need to focus on facts and make the article reflective!
• Before anyone brings it up, seats in Westminster is of total irrelevance because this is not a Westminster election, it is a local election. I gave the Eastleigh example to merely emphasize how the media treated the party (as an equal) during the campaign, the argument for adding UKIP in no way based on the result of a Westminster by-election.

I feel this case is quite compelling, the election is less than 2 months away, given the status quo it seems clear that they should be included, to assume that the present set of circumstances is going to dramatically change would be a violation of WP:Crystal! We need to reflect reality and this change is indeed reflecting reality for the above reasoning!213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows yet how many candidates UKIP is standing, as nominations have not opened yet. doktorb _words^deeds 11:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

2,000 candidates have already been formally accepted by the party as candidates. Here's the nearest thing to a reliable source confirming that http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/01/tories-ukip-harm-sdp-labour

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 justified213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I am being neutral on this. We have discussed this before, and all your points above can be easily dismissed. Not a single candidate's form has been filled in yet, so there's no proof of candidate numbers. The summary box is just that - a summary. It gives us a broadbrush of the election has it happened four years ago, and discounts other parties with significant local coverage, including Greens and residents associations. This has been agreed clearly through discussions and consensus.

− −

You have chosen to add UKIP to the article summary box without it being agreed here. You're trying to say "Fix the system, then talk about it." I'm not looking at things that way round. We don't include UKIP unless there's consensus to do so, and there is no consensus. doktorb _words^deeds 11:35, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's difficult to argue that you are being neutral! But to address your points:

• Yes, this has been discussed before but not all of these points, last time the discussion was left that we'd be open to the idea if the facts change and reality on the ground changes significantly enough....It has!
• Yes, it's true that no nominations have formally been made yet but the date for such nominations to be made has not arrived yet! So it begs the question why we have an info box at all until such nominations have been made!
• The election box is not merely to summarise the previous result and you know it! That is art of what the election box does but not the be all and end all, we have got to reflect reality. The current box does not!
• Your example of the Greens does not compare! We are not talking about significant local coverage on a town or city level! We are talking on a fully national level, your green example is of total irrelevance! The national media are treating UKIP on equal terms as the other 3 main parties in all elections! I have given evidence of this!

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)

(1) Nobody knows how many candidates are standing; the cite above does not change that point. (2) The polls are polls of general election voting intention: you can't dismiss seats in Westminster as a total irrelevance and then base an argument on polls of Westminster voting intention. (3) Labour do control a council up for election and both Labour and the LibDems have far, far more councillors up for election than UKIP.

Dear IP editor, repeatedly ignoring consensus and making demonstrably false arguments is not helping anyone improve this article. Likewise, your repeated infractions of assume good faith policy are also unhelpful. You have been repeatedly warned about this; please pay attention to what people are saying to you. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

@Bondegezou thankyou for at least engaging in discussion and not metaphorically bashing your fist on the table like doktorb screaming no no no. I will address your points:

• Candidates For now I will accept your points about the number of candidates standing as nominations are not open. However if when nominations have opened (Ceteris paribus) and UKIP have formally put forward 2,000+ candidates (or greater than or equal to the Lib Dems) then in my view the must absolutely be included based on my above arguments (Ceteris paribus).
• Polling 1) You are right to point out that national opinion polls are for Westminster elections. However, they do still reflect public opinion at a local level as people generally vote for the same party at a local level as they do a national level! They don't always, indeed at a local level they are more likely to vote for a smaller party (the greens are the best example of this), by that same reasoning doktorb tried to use, people are more likely to vote UKIP in a local election than a general election. The evidence of this is indeed that UKIP have won seats at a local level in the past but not in Westminster!
• Polling 2) Your argument that some how Westminster seats are somehow relevant is at best a bit of a stretch! There is an incredibly important difference that you ignore: Unlike in Northern Ireland, the constituencies at local level are not the same as at national Level! They are by far smaller! For example in any single Westminster constituency, you will have a much larger number of wards and these more often then not are held by a number of different parties! It is incredibly rare that all the wards in and one Westminster constituency will be held by just one party, they are usually shared out between at least 2 parties but generally 3 or 4 parties! This alone makes the Westminster seats argument wholly redundant because of past electoral history at a local level. You can't call that original research can you!
• Polling 3) I don't know if you are aware but at the time these elections were last held UKIP was poling at less than 3% in national opinion polls (not European, that was over 10%). In the last few weeks UKIP has been polling at a minimum of 10% in all UK polls (apart from ICM) and a maximum of 17% by any measure this makes it a dramatically different situation to the last time these elections were held!
• Labour control a "Unitary Authority" Council which is not a "Non-metropolitan county councils" but wait.... we're not basing the info box on that are we? Not unless you propose changing it and in doing so start moving goal posts? In actual fact the info box is currently being based on the county council elections because that is the main national contest, this is indeed a pretty standard practice for wiki local election pages!
• Odd comment You state that "both Labour and the LibDems have far, far more councillors up for election than UKIP." Sorry but I thought that nominations hadn't opened yet? Is a comment such as this somewhat jumping the gun as I was accused of?

81.149.185.174 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protection

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)

I would support that. It seems that there is a determined corps of IP addresses wanting to circumvent consensus and processes. This will only get more determined as we get closer to polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 11:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems though that the determination of the usual crowd of LibDem editors to avoid facts staring them in the face is forever greater!213.120.148.60 (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

And it seems an anonymous UKIP supporter wants to put them on the article without consensus. doktorb _words^deeds 11:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As per WP:SEMI, I think it would be appropriate to lay out more clearly arguments for, and indeed against, semi-protection so that we can reach some sort of consensus before making a request.

These elections are coming soon: articles on current elections usually get a lot of attention, some of which can be disruptive, and semi-protection is a standard approach to help tackle the situation.

This and other UK election/political articles have seen a high rate of disputed editing involving IP editors, particularly over coverage of UKIP. Many anonymous edits have been reverted. There is also a related history of sock-puppetry.

There have been repeated problems with IP editors ignoring policy, including over original research and reliable sources. IP editors have also repeatedly made demonstrably untrue claims as if they are facts.

There have been repeated good faith problems with IP editors making personal attacks on other editors. Complaints made by IP editors have been considered and rejected by due process.

Semi-protection has been used to tackle these problems in related cases.

None of this is meant to condemn every IP editor or to suggest that very anonymous edit is unhelpful. Bondegezou (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Do what you will, Liberal Democrats control the politics/elections section of Wikipedia, if enough Lib Dems want protection, the simple fact of the matter is that you'll get it! I've tried to put forward a reasonable argument and engage in debate properly, to be repeatedly dismissed by doktorbuk with what can only be described as weak rebuttals! If by the time nominations have opened and UKIP have over 2,000 candidates (or more than the Lib Dems) it will further emphasize Lib Dems ownership of wikipedia! I have acted in good faith and said specifically that I would wait until other editors engage in discussion before reverting an edit. I have and will keep my word, so as far as I'm concerned there is no need for protection! Doktorbuk on the other hand gives short pithy one line response that don't address the argument and will immediately revert edits when I have made efforts to act in good faith. All of this and I'm left to be made out to be the one that's singled out as the criminal/vandal! Thanks a lot!213.120.148.60 (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear IP editor, your comments again violate assume good faith. You have been warned about this repeatedly. Bondegezou (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As a rule I do assume good faith and have indeed given yourself benefit of the doubt on a regular basis. One finds it very hard to assume good faith of someone who is giving very strong indications that they are not acting in good faith. I can recall countless comments on other pages where doktorbuk has gigen just cause to believe this. Phrases like "we must defeat the UKIP IPs" is a bit of a dead give away of his intentions when it is openly known and plainly stated on his Userpage that he is a Liberal Democrat! Furthermore I have tried to have a sensible discussion with doktorbuk, the editor in question chooses not to engage and simply closes down debates and reverts edits. I have treated Bondegezou more favorably because I have at least had some form of decency from you and you have engaged in discussion! I'm all for assuming good faith and acting in good faith but when the opposite is presented before me, I can not make that assumption! 213.120.148.60 (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy is "assume good faith", not "assume good faith when you feel like it". Bondegezou (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Bash head against brick wall that's what I'm saying, are you having difficulty reading? I am saying that I have been assuming good faith, except when it has seemed blatantly obvious that someone is not acting in good faith! What you are suggesting is absurd as asking me to assume that there is a window in the back of my wardrobe!!!!! (Incase you were wondering there isn't one!!!) 81.149.185.174 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the IP editor's continued difficulties with WP:AGF, I have reported the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others. Others here may wish to follow that discussion. Bondegezou (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

The upshot of the ANI report was that the main IP editor has been banned as a sockpuppet of Sheffno1gunner: the discussion is now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive790#User:81.149.185.174.2C_213.120.148.60_and_others and see sock investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013. Bondegezou (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Do UKIP fulfill Criteria?

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:

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".

• Past electoral performance in same election, by the BBCs own criteria, this is not the be all and end all for them, there are endless examples of this, I have already given the example of how the BBC reported Eastleigh despite them only achieving 3.6% at the previous election in that seat! Clear example of how previous results are not the be all and end all!
• performance in subsequent elections 1 UKIP have won a significant number of by-elections at local level recently. Here's just a couple of examples from the last few weeks: Foxhills, Surrey http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2130927_ukip_wins_surrey_council_seat_for_first_time and Congleton http://www.congleton-tc.gov.uk/about-us/meet-the-councilors/louise-bours/ they have also been coming 2nd in other local council by-elections
• performance in subsequent elections 2 I have already given the example of the PCC elections, the most recent set of elections at county level in England that put UKIP on par with the Lib Dems!
• performance in subsequent elections 3 need I mention the dramatic increase in the vote shares in recent by elections! Not just Eastleigh and Rotherham, but also strong showings in Barnsley, Corby and Middlesborough. They've also beaten the Lib Dems in other by-elections in Croydon.
• other relevant evidence of current electoral support - I'd say it's fairly safe to say that a years worth of opinion polls counts as strong evidence. The BBC seem to think so, watch this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01r32fn/Newswatch_08_03_2013/ the BBC spokesman includes opinion polling as a significant justification!
• The number of candidates a party fields in the election we have discussed this and I accept the point that nominations are not yet open. On this basis and this basis alone I suggest we wait until nominations open and see that UKIPs 2,000+ candidates (= to or > number of Lib Dem candidates) and then include them! I am accepting this as a mere formality.

---

---

---

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)

Let's consider the above.

• Past electoral performance in same election: this is the main criterion and UKIP clearly did very, very badly at the last elections. Con, Lab and LD all clearly pass; Greens did better than UKIP.
• performance in subsequent elections 1 UKIP have won a small number of local by-elections. This listing reports no gains in local by-elections in principal authorities in 2012 or 2013 by UKIP. Con, Lab, LD and Green all have made gains.
• performance in subsequent elections 2 UKIP won none of the PCC elections. Con and Lab both won some seats. LDs didn't win any, but they polled higher than UKIP.
• performance in subsequent elections 3 UKIP won none of the Westminster by-elections. Lab, LD and Respect (and Sinn Féin) have.
• other relevant evidence of current electoral support UKIP have been doing much better in polling (although the polls are for general election voting). Lab and Con still clearly ahead.
• The number of candidates a party fields in the election Nominations have not yet opened. Parties at this stage may claim to have lots of candidates ready, but actually getting the necessary nominations is not a formality. Let's wait and see.

From this it is very clear why the BBC guidance identified three main parties (Lab, Con, LD) and then mentions specifically two smaller parties (UKIP, Greens). Let me make this clear: we don't need to try and apply the BBC's criteria for them. They have already done this. I still feel this article should follow that lead. Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

All your above argument does is plays down the facts that I have quoted without actually adding anything credible!

• I took your point on past performance, was not disputing numbers, was emphasizing thought that BBC don't see ait as the be all and end all, your argument seems to rest most strongly on past results being the be all and end all!
• UKIP have won more than the 2 by-elections I have quoted, those are just the ones from the last few weeks. So your response was just a case of playing down a key part of the criteria!
• With regard to the PCCs it depends how you read the statistics Bondegezou! In terms of total number of votes nationwide, yes LDs just managed to gain more votes but only 0.16% more! Also are we comparing like with like? Errr no we're not! Overall LDs contested constituencies with larger populations than UKIP so this is a case of stating the blinking obvious! However UKIP beet the Lib Dems in the constituencies where they were head to head. This is discussed in my above source by the BBcs Nick Robinson! So yea, that argument is discredited!
• Not a lot you could say about polling really was there?
• The only point that has any real credibility is that the nominations haven't opened yet, all your other rebuttals I'm afraid are insufficient

Therefore, (as I have said before) I agree that we should wait until the nominations open and we have an idea of how many candidates are put forward by all the parties! By the way if the Greens also put up 2,000 candidates, gain at least an extra 5% in the polls and enjoy significantly more media coverage, then I will remain very open minded to their inclusion in the infobox at the same time as UKIP!

As you say the BBC have set some very clear criteria and currently seem to be acting on it, notice the increase of UKIP representatives appearing on shows like the Daily/Sunday Politics and Question Time as well as extra News Coverage. Also I'm not sure if you've noticed but Question Time use to always always have a Liberal Democrat on the panel, they only have representation on about 2/3 of the shows now! As you say we don't need to try and apply the BBC's criteria for them. They have already done this.

It seems abundantly clear that 2 out of the 4 of the BBCs criteria are firmly met, we are waiting on confirmation of the 3rd. If we get to the point where past electoral performance is the only factor preventing us from adding UKIP (as per the criteria) then the article will not be reflecting reality and this article will have an undue favorable biased towards the so called "3 main parties"!213.120.148.60 (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I have provided a link to where the BBC have stated their criteria for reporting these elections and their reasoning. Attempting to argue that you are better at interpreting the BBC's criteria than the BBC is both implausible and bordering on original research. Attempting to claim that the BBC are treating UKIP as a main party for these elections is clearly refuted by the citation. Your desire to have UKIP featured more prominently on Wikipedia is palpable, but not supported by policy, however many times you say it is. Bondegezou (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see what the BBC have put as their criteria! I am merely saying what they are doing at a national level with their coverage (a significant "other" factor), besides the fact the BBC is not Wikipedia. You originally said we should use the BBCs criteria as a guide and that is what has been done. There are other media outlets and what is abundantly clear is that all the major newspapers (reliable sources), some of which I have quoted are already stating UKIP to be a major contender and "threat" in these elections! My desire to have a reflective article is what is palpable. As I have said before if the Greens gain at least an extra 5% (i.e. 7-8% nationally) in the polls and field a significantly high enough number of candidates then they should also be included! It also seemed necessary to give you a reality check with regard to the PCC elections, hence my response! I still absolutely reject that this is the final word on it until the nominations have been closed, besides in all likelihood UKIP will earn it's place in the info box by gaining seats.

If UKIP were to gain seats and earn their place in the info box in a way as so easily predicted by the national polls (and reliable source newspapers etc) whereby UKIP gained say something like: between 15% and 20% of the national vote (not just their contested seats but the actual national vote across England) and gained a significant increase in their number of county councilors (say 100 councilors) you would be totally discredit as an editor deemed incapable of making sound and reasoned judgement based on a variety of evidence! In such an instance your opinion should carry no where near as much weight when deciding UKIPs inclusion in info boxes for any upcoming elections such as Next United Kingdom general election, as you will have a record of talking the party down (as demonstrated in your above phrasing of your arguments) for whatever reason! This will be seen as clear written evidence that you are not an impartial editor and that you have a political motive for talking UKIP down when there is indeed strong evidence put before you to suggest that they should be included. This election is very much a dress rehearsal for the 2014 elections and UKIPs 1st real national test since the polling surge. If you are deemed wrong on this despite all the evidence then your opinion will count very little for the 2015 discussions! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 15:49, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A quick run through local by-election results for information:

• Jan 2013: 10 elections - 4 Con, 3 Lab, 3 LD
• Dec 2012: 15 elections - 4 Con, 2 Lab, 7 LD, 1 UKIP, 1 Green
• Nov 2012: 42 elections - 18 Con, 12 Lab, 8 LD, 3 Independent, 1 Green
• Oct 2012: 14 elections - 2 Con, 3 Lab, 6 LD, 3 Independent
• Sep 2012: 26 elections - 14 Con, 6 Lab, 5 LD, 1 Independent

I could go on. I think that puts claims of UKIP's successes in local by-elections into some perspective. Bondegezou (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Aug 2012: 10 elections - 2 Con, 2 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Plaid Cymru, 1 Residents' Association, 1 Independent
• Jul 2012: 25 elections - 8 Con, 8 Lab, 3 LD, 1 Plaid, 1 Green, 4 Independent
• Jun 2012: 19 elections - 12 Con, 4 Lab, 3 LD
• May 2012: 37 elections - 19 Con, 12 Lab, 4 LD, 4 Independent

It is very, very clear that UKIP have not made any breakthrough in local by-elections lately. They have way fewer wins than the Conservatives, Labour or Liberal Democrats, and fewer also than the Greens or Plaid Cymru (who only stand in Wales) or assorted independents. Any claims of a breakthrough in local by-elections is either wishful thinking or mendacity. These results strongly support the current position of not listing UKIP in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

81.149.185.174, you suggest a possible outcome where "UKIP [...] gained a significant increase in their number of county councilors (say 100 councilors)". Given UKIP currently have next to no councillors, an increase of about 100 would put them on a total of about 100. Last year, the smallest of the three main parties (the LibDems) won 431 councillors. The year before, they won 1098. The year before, 1730. The year before, that takes us to 2009, the last time most of this year's elections were held, then the LibDems won 484 councillors, but the smallest party that year was Labour with 178 councillors. Year before, LibDems smallest on 1805. Year before, Labour on 1877. Year before, LibDems on 909. Year before, so again the same cycle as this year, the LibDems were smallest on 493.

In the light of those figures, even if UKIP were to win 100 councillors, a prediction that personally seems unlikely to me and for which you have provided no cites, that would still be well below the numbers the three main parties win. So, even if UKIP won 100 councillors, they would probably still be so far behind the other parties that I can't see that there would be any reason to change the infobox (while of course the party's growth would warrant attention within the text of the article). Bondegezou (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Yet another by-election win for UKIP. Bearing in mind the UKIP surge is a relatively recent thing and that there growth has been relatively slow and steady Bondegezou is wrong to put so much emphasis on the whole of the last year and beyond! I have pointed out 3 examples of by-election results at local level where UKIP have actually taken seats. Bearing in mind I haven't had to go any further back than a month to get these results, Bondegezou has had spend their time digging, also I'd question whether your original source can be considered valid! But you still haven't given a sufficient response to the most recent national test at county level i.e. the PCCs! Your response amounted to talking UKIP down and the Lib Dems up based on your interpretation of the figures. Whereas I actually used a reliable source to say who beat who in the PCCs between UKIP and Lib Dems! 81.149.185.174 (talk) 11:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

If UKIP's supposed surge in local by-elections is so recent that it's only in the last month or two, then clearly it would not be appropriate to change this article's infobox on something potentially so ephemeral. Come back when there's something sustained to talk about. See WP:RECENT for more guidance.

Even if we leave aside the recency issue, I suggest you are blowing out of proportion three local by-elections. There are several by-elections most weeks. So, last week, yes, UKIP took a seat in Runnymede. But there were at least 7 local by-elections that week: UKIP one won (a gain from the Conservatives), but there were 3 Labour victories (2 holds, 1 gain from Con), 1 Conservative victory (a gain from an independent) and 2 LibDem victories (1 hold, 1 gain from Con). The week before, there was one local by-election, won by an independent (and UKIP didn't even stand). The week before, three: 2 Labour holds, 1 LibDem hold. UKIP occasionally winning a seat is certainly an improvement for them compared to most of 2012 (when they won nothing), but it doesn't put them in a comparable position to the three main parties, which win seats week in, week out. In Aug 2012-Jan 2013, the LibDems were averaging over 5 local by-election wins a month. Come back when UKIP are winning comparable numbers of local by-elections to the major parties.

You mention the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012 again. Well, there were 41 of these. 16 were won by the Conservatives, 13 by Labour and 12 by various independents. UKIP and the Liberal Democrats won none, and indeed both parties didn't even stand in every contest (only 24 each). Neither party even managed second place. Overall, LibDem candidates got 7.17% of the vote and UKIP got 7.07%, just behind. The infobox for that article includes the Conservatives, Labour and independents. That seems an appropriate infobox for that article: UKIP and the LibDems were both clearly well off the pace. Those elections were for different people than the forthcoming local elections, so there's a question of how relevant those elections are to these. If those results argue anything, it would seem to be for the removal of the LibDems from this article's infobox rather than for the addition of UKIP! (Plenty of other evidence, as above, suggests keeping the LibDems in this article's infobox.) I really don't see how those elections support your case for adding UKIP.

Leaving aside all of the above, it's also very clear that no-one is supporting your suggested change. So perhaps we could move on? Bondegezou (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Update on yesterday's local elections: there were 6. I've not seen results for one, but out of the other 5, UKIP, as IP editor said, gained one. The LibDems gained two (1 each from Lab and Con). Lab held 1 and gained 1 (from the LibDems). While UKIP won one, they didn't stand at all in 3 of these contests, and were 4th in the other. Occasional single wins by UKIP in occasional weeks does not look to me like any sort of grand shift in UK politics that requires article infoboxes to be changed. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but why is Bondegezou constantly fighting back when the other editors have clearly agreed to leaving the info box and article as it is until the election has actually taken place? I am in agreement with keeping the article as it is until the election has taken place. As others have said it is UKIPs 1st test on a national level. I agree with Bondegezou when he/she states that the PCCs gave more of an argument to remove the LibDems than add UKIP. However, that is not the only factor at play here. I think the above discussion should be bared in mind if and when it comes to a point whereby we need to discuss adding UKIP to 2014 and 2015. For that to happen UKIP should have almost as many, equal to or more than the number of seats the lowest scoring party out of the 3main parties achieves. It could be argued that Bondegezou has sought to talk UKIP down here and that could well be an important consideration in the future. That said we're talking hypotheticals here, UKIP would of course have to make a sizeable breakthrough! Bondegezou don't take those comments as anything personal, all I am saying is that if a situation does arise where you find yourself talking UKIP down in the future and it's the case that the grounds for inclusion have significantly increased then your partiality would indeed be in question but for now I assume your good faith as I hope other editors do :-) 130.88.115.61 (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you now agree that it is inappropriate to add UKIP to the infobox before the election. When the results come in, we can of course re-assess. Bondegezou (talk) 18:58, 24 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

More Required

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

Thank you for your contribution Daniel. I'll try and answer your questions in order:

• Details The answer as to why not all the councils have had their details put in is pure and simply that no one has got round to doing it yet. Your right, it needs doing, if you would like to help make a start that would be great! Otherwise I'm sure it will be done in good time.
• Different Councils The reason we separate the 3 distinct sorts of council is because they are quite simply not the same thing, apples and oranges. A Unitary Authority(metropolitan) has a single tier of local government. Whereas county councils also have another layer of government beneath them (the parrish/town council). This clearly means that these different sorts of government do different things.
• Simplify However you do raise a sensible point about keeping the article as simple as possible. You will notice that Wales has a separate section, this does not really make much sense given that only one council is up for grabs. In line with your suggestion, I am of the view that Anglesey should be moved to the County Council elections and the title changed to "England and Wales"

Other then that the layout of the article is indeed appropriate and consistent with that of Wikipedia policy and of course with reality even if there are some stark omitions in terms of content! Thank you for your question and contribution. 213.120.148.60 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Anglesey is a special case (in oh so many ways), because it had its Council taken over by the Welsh government's appointed Commissioners following a complete collapse in governance. They were forced to undertake boundary changes to reduce the size of the council, with the election postponed until this year. I think keeping it separate is fair because, amongst other things, it's Wales and not England, and as such has a different electoral cycle, role, responsibility and electoral history. Other than that, your reply seems fine to me :)

I have to point out, though, that the original post has been spamming almost dozens of talk pages, and should at least have the URL removed from this post and all others doktorb _words^deeds 20:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I see, right, well I have made the change but from what you say it does sound note worthy, so What I suggest we do is have a special note as it does sound like a notable event! However I see no need to have a separate table for one council. Also England and Wales are often mentioned in the same breath, same legal system and all of that. I think you should elaborate slightly (no more than a couple of additional sentences to the text that is above the table as per my edits. Many Thanks 213.120.148.60 (talk) 20:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Will you please stop making changes without consensus. You deciding it's a good idea is not enough to make a change, on the pretence that a full discussion has been made. England and Wales are not associated together for local government purposes, for one thing. doktorb _words^deeds 10:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Addition of a Map

Locations of local elections in England, 2 May 2013

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 also think a map would be helpful 130.88.115.46 (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there one readily available anywhere? 2.123.20.148 (talk) 10:15, 30 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)

Very Good and yes you do have a map that includes Anglesey because it is the large island at the North West tip of Wales. It is completely separated from mainland Wales(Britain) so you could quite easily change this :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.35.7 (talk) 00:07, 4 April 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)

Statement of persons nominated

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)

Full SoPN are indeed being published, but unless you have an army of autistic office temps working for you, there's no evidence yet to show full figures for every single division of every single shire-county. In the interests of fairness, I suggest we wait until next Wednesday, the latest possible date for County Councils themselves to publish candidature details. doktorb _words^deeds 15:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Nominating a large number of candidates does seem of some note with respect to the question of whether UKIP should be in the infobox or not. However, it is clearly not a deciding factor in itself. (The Referendum Party ran 547 candidates in the 1997 general election, but they got 2% of the total vote and won nothing. UKIP ran 558 candidates at the last general election and got 3.1% of the vote and won nothing.) I refer you to the previous discussions (above). I also note that only one person appears to be arguing for UKIP's addition to the infobox: there is clearly no consensus whatsoever for such a move. Bondegezou (talk) 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Additional thought: there's about 2400 councillors up for election. I suggest it would be wrong to include any party that wins less than, say, 5% (so about 120 councillors) of those in the infobox. More than 10% (~240) and I think it would probably be appropriate to include such a party. In between looks like a grey area to me. That's just a gut reaction though. Bondegezou (talk) 15:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses, I understand that there is no consensus and it would be best to see the results first. I did refer to the conversations further up the page, and can see that the argument clearly got quite heated; though I hope this doesn't happen again. Also, Doktorbuk I actually have Asperger's syndrome and you are quite right on my habits; I have checked practically every published statement! Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.79.58 (talk) 15:59, 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)

I think it is possible but unlikely that UKIP will have a significant enough breakthrough to warrant being added to the infobox. UKIP's ardent supporters here talk about making 100 gains, which seems to me fairly insignificant out of over 2000 elections. Let us not presume anything until the election happens, and let us then considered the matter peacefully. Bondegezou (talk) 08:46, 8 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)

Update: Contrary to the claims at the beginning of this section, UKIP have put up fewer, but close to, the number of candidates from the LibDems and substantially below Labour or the Conservatives.[2] As previously, certain claims for UKIP have been somewhat over-enthusiastic. Bondegezou (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox problems

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)

I see why that's confusing. The explanation is complicated. Those numbers reflect the results of the 2009 local elections when most of these elections were last held. Bristol has elections in third, so when these elections were held in 2009, the LibDems took control of the council, but they've lost control since. Meanwhile, Durham is a bit of an exception: it last had an election in 2008, but there was a re-organisation and it's moved a year in the cycle. I'll add some footnotes to clarify. Bondegezou (talk) 12:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is somewhat dodgy. I'd be strongly suggest that the 'last election' figures are the previous results from all positions up for grabs, excluding (or footnoting) Durham because it wasn't voted for at the same time as many of the others last time doesn't seem particularly logical. But mebe these things have been debated to death up in that mess. Also, mebe the infobox could/should be extended to also show councils/councillors the day before the election, to account for defections and such.....but then how to include bristol. Probably a matter of if anyone can be bothered. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not dodgy. Most of the elections held in 2013 are those being defended from 2009. So we have to show "like for like". Anything else is manipulation (hence, the rightful exclusion of UKIP) doktorb _words^deeds 13:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh don't be so defensive, I'm not a UKIPer. Example of dodgyness: If Lab win Durham but nothing else....the infobox will have displayed that labour held 0 councils before election, 1 after.....gaining 0. The infobox isn't showing like for like, because these elections are not only the 2009 ones, excluding those held previously on a different date is far closer to manipulation. The only problem I see is the vote share. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

It is all fiddly and complicated. I suggest we see what the BBC do and follow them as a reliable source. It's pretty standard in the media to base comparisons on the last election result and not on defections or by-elections since, so the BBC and newspapers do report as a gain a Commons seat that was already won by that party at a by-election. The complication that most of these seats were last fought in 2009, but there are these three exceptions... I'm less sure what to do there, so will keep an eye on what reliable sources do.

Vote share... the thing about vote share is that we should be clear it's a projected national vote share. It's not the actual vote share: it's a calculation used by media and psephologists to make year-on-year comparisons meaningful even though they're for elections in different areas. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 11 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)

Agreed. I suggest we compare with the previous year as that's the point of the projected vote share. Bondegezou (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Using last years projected vote share seems like the best idea, as a like for like comparison is so tricky. Also agree (for ease of finding info if nothing else) that using last results rather than day-before-election-standings makes sense...although the lib-dem loss is not so straightforward, if they lost it at election of a separate 3rd rather than defection...else it will be described that they lost that council at 3 separate elections? It's a bit....dodgy. It seems pretty certain to me that after the election the infobox will count all results, not just the results of those last contested in 2009, so before the election should do the same. I really think that the previous-situation/gains&losses/results, should add up. I can't see that having 1+0=0, or similar...can be a good idea. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest we just use the info box for councils as opposed to including directly elected Mayors because its a different type of election, under a different type of system, for a completely different type of position, we can't count a mayor as a council or councillor because they are neither. As elections to the council chambers take place at a different time. Simply put the mayors shouldn't go in the info box because there is nowhere for them to fit. 130.88.115.11 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at last years national shares, changing to use that would involve moving Labour to first party, which could be controversial.....and is likely to seem like nonsense given the overwhelming conservativeness of the councils contested, and the national government. Could really do with firm guidelines for this stuff. 92.15.77.178 (talk) 18:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Vote share: compare to last year's or 2009's?

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)

213.120.148.60 is a known sock puppet with, um, issues. In articles for previous years, vote share is always compared with the previous year. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That of course excuses your actions....I think not. That is an unrelated matter, the block has expired so can we stick to the subject of the feed. Rules have got to be applied in the same measure to all editors, you have made an edit against consensus and misrepresented what the talk page said in the edit log, so your edit is disingenuous. The evidence clearly suggests you have not acted in good faith and have disregarded the talk page and wikipedia policy. 81.149.185.174 (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

213.120.148.60 and 81.149.185.174 are socks of Sheffno1gunner, who has been permanently banned for block evasion and disruptive editing, including vandalism and personal attacks against myself and a number of other editors.

If anyone has anything constructive to add to the discussion, I'm all ears. I've left the article in its earlier form for now.Bondegezou (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely we should be comparing this round of elections with those in 2009 and not last year's? Otherwise we're not comparing like-with-like. Therefore I support the infobox as it is now. David (talk) 12:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see the rationale for comparing with 4 years ago as that's when (most of) these elections were last held (a few exceptions were last in 2008). However, the vote share given isn't simply calculated from adding up all the votes. Rather, it's a projected national vote share that takes into account where the elections are being held: that gets round (at least, some of) the question of whether you're comparing like-with-like.

Either way, I note United Kingdom local elections, 2012, United Kingdom local elections, 2011, United Kingdom local elections, 2010 etc. all (I think) use the previous calendar year for the vote share line in the infobox. So my thinking was that, if we're going to do something different for this article, we need a very good reason why and should then consider whether all those articles should be changed too. (I've also retitled this section given Sheffno's behaviour.) Bondegezou (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the Vote share box too. When these particular seats were last contested, Conservatives got a lot more than Labour, but the current info box implies Labour won. Surely the "Vote share at Last election" would do better to reflect the vote share for these particular seats not for the last election per se ? 2.10.12.53 (talk) 19:52, 1 May 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)

The figures used in the vote share row are projected national vote shares. That is, they are adjusted to take into account that local elections in different years are in different places, thus they should be comparable year to year (arguments about the methodology of calculating these figures notwithstanding). So you shouldn't see the problem suggested by Redverton that Labour appears to be declining in support since 2012 just because these are county council elections: the projected national vote share has adjusted for that already. Bondegezou (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

... and whatever we do, we should append some explanatory note as to what comparison is being made. Bondegezou (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic explanation of projected national vote share here. Bondegezou (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I actually never knew that was what the last election statistics were based on. Seems a pretty good thing to use. Thanks for informing me about all this. I say defo use that for now. However, I agree a note of some kind explaining those figures wouldn't go amiss - I count myself as a political animal, but if I didn't know about this then most lay readers definitely won't. Redverton (talk) 15:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The popular % vote is not the actual vote in these elections, but an adjusted figure to predict what would happen nationally, but I don't think it mentions this! Someone needs to state this or else it will be very confusing --Andromedean (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Electoral system?

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)

They are all FPTP, mostly in single-member seats (I think all the county councils + Bristol) and some in multi-member seats (other unitary authorities + Isle of Anglesey) (whatever the technical term for FPTP in a multi-member seat is). Except the 2 directly-elected mayors, which are SV. Yes, that would be useful detail. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree because having looked in what seemed to be the obvious places, I have still found no explanation of how local govt elections in E&W work. I'm not sure that NI is properly covered either. Off-wiki, the Electoral Commission's extensive collection of bumf turned out to be about as useful as a chocolate teapot. I had figured out that Devon at least was run on FPTP in 2009, but that didn't really fit with what I half-remembered of TV coverage of local elections in cities back when the BNP, rather than UKIP, were the bogey-men. That'll be your multi-member seats then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. All directly-elected mayors are SV. The London Assembly is AMS. Northern Ireland has been STV for local elections for decades. Scotland recently switched to STV for locals from FPTP. E&W have been FPTP for many, many years (what happened back in the 19th century, no idea). But whether E&W locals are single-member, multi-member but elected in different years, or multi-member elected at once, that's complex and changes. And Westminster is FPTP except STV was used for the university constituencies in the first half of the 20th century, and it was limited vote if you go back far enough. Bondegezou (talk) 16:03, 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)

not all counties have single-member divisions - Cambridgeshire has a few 2 member divisions despite being mostly single-member and by the looks of it some of the other counties such as Derbyshire/Hampshire are the same. As for the unitaries, Durham is a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 member divisions from this year, and this seems to be the case for at least Shropshire as well. Pilchard (talk) 17:55, 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)

Requesting Protection

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)

A request has been made. I would have done it myself if it hadn't taken me so long to work out how.Spudgfsh (talk) 18:02, 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)

UKIP

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.

Why not just wait another 18 hours or so for the actual results to come in? If UKIP get a decent result then they'll be added to the infobox. David (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

As ever, we should be guided by reliable sources. The BBC are currently wavering between saying UKIP are now one of 4 main parties or a successful but still "minor" party. Many more results to come... Bondegezou (talk) 07:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What I suggested above, based on looking at prior articles, was: "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." Overnight, UKIP have won 11% of councillors (and 0/1 mayor), so that's pretty ambivalent. (Labour are on the same number of councillors, but won the 1 mayoral election counted so far.) However, we're getting reliable source comments like this from Nick Robinson, the BBC's Political editor: "The stranglehold of the three big parties have had on British politics has been broken." If the remainder of today's results are the same, I would lean in favour of including UKIP in this article's infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

New infobox

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)

Looks about right to me. Previous pages here have ordered parties by number of councils won first. I'd suggest using the changes in councils/councillors as given by media sources - differences in which councils are up this year as well as boundary changes make a direct like-for-like comparison with 2009 difficult. And seeing how the media narrative of the elections is around UKIP, I'd say include them, even if they don't make 10% of councillors. Pilchard (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

So infobox ordered by # councils/councillors, i.e. Conservative, Labour, LibDem and UKIP.[3] (Should we include Independents? They're currently on 92 councillors compared to UKIP's 79? They're included in the infobox for the England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012.) Vote share using the BBC's projected national figures and compared to 2012's, OK? Bondegezou (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

(Independents now somewhat behind UKIP on councillors: 108 to 121.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:29, 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)

As per discussion above, prior local election articles give the projected national vote share for the previous year in the "last election" row. These figures are adjusted to take into account that local elections are in different places each year. Why should we change that practice this year? Bondegezou (talk) 16:00, 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)

That is the figure used on prior articles, as reported by reliable sources. Do you have an alternate figure,with citations? Bondegezou (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's about an alternate figure (although the actual total might be usefully included if anyone can find that); it's perfectly acceptable to stick to estimates from one source. But a note should be added (either in the infobox of the footnote) that it is an estimated national share, not an actual vote share. Although the estimate for this election seems to have disappeared from the article anyway, which begs the question of the point of including the estimate for the previous election. But can you add that note?--82.35.251.109 (talk) 12:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A note seems very sensible. I've now added one. Bondegezou (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Turnout

Any figures?Keith-264 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Table of results?

Is anyone working on a table of the results for this article?--82.35.251.109 (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Figures are wrong!

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:

• Conservative 1,116 ( 335) [1,116 in England and 0 in Anglesey]
• Labour 541 ( 290) [538 in England and 3 in Anglesey]
• Liberal Democrat 353 ( 125) [352 in England and 1 in Anglesey]

As verifiable by the BBC.

Popular Vote

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))

This is now indicated with a footnote and reflects reliable source coverage. Bondegezou (talk) 07:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Good but this needs to be done for every year (Coachtripfan (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC))

Yes, yes, it does. If somebody would like to copy the code and do that, that'd be great. Bondegezou (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Voters who are registered at more than one address

I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit. I originally wrote:

Those who are registered to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) are entitled to vote in the local elections at each address, as long as they are not in the same local government area.

User:Moonraker12 changed this to:

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, and vote at each address in local government elections, but it remains an offence to vote more than once in elections to one local government area.

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:

Can I vote twice, at home and at uni?

You can’t vote twice in: a UK Parliamentary, Scottish Parliamentary, National Assembly for Wales or European Parliamentary election.

But you can vote in local government elections at home and at your term-time address, as long as they are not in the same local government area.

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

External links modified

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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130822035308/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/students.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/students.aspx

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)