Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:45, 5 January 2013

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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 11:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

On that basis Nick, can you ensure the article goes through a deletion process please? doktorb _words 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 12:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

No. That is not appropriate. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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

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 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 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 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 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 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.