Talk:2018 United Kingdom local elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Districts[edit]

I don't think either Stratford or Stroud has elections next year? Prouder Mary 10:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom[edit]

The elections are not United Kingdom elections - they're solely English elections, perhaps the article should reflect that? Utrais (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the image legend say "not part of the United Kingdom" rather than England, given Scotland and Wales are in white not grey? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.226.175 (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are annual elections taking place within the United Kingdom, so they're UK local elections. The UK is not a body to which officials are elected so it's fine to use it somewhat informally here. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The title should read local elections in England as they are taking place there and not the rest of the UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.238.142 (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - they're part of the typical United Kingdom electoral cycle and form part of a yearly article series on local elections held within the United Kingdom. If we rename this to English local elections, 2018 then surely the link to 2017 would have to be to an English local elections, 2017 page to ensure consistency? England is not a separate legal jurisdiction or political entity so there's nothing tangible that separates 'English' local election results from 'United Kingdom' local election results. One other thing to bear in mind is that any local authority could hypothetically be held off-calendar in 'English only' election years, as Anglesey was in 2013. Maswimelleu (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"England is not a separate legal jurisdiction or political entity so there's nothing tangible that separates 'English' local election results from 'United Kingdom' local election results." Precisely, thank you Maswimelleu. Legally speaking England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are part of the same country - the United Kingdom. So these are United Kingdom local elections. We can have sub-articles for specific nations and regions (e.g. London local elections, Scottish local elections) but these are UK elections that happen to be taking place, this year, only in England. 139.222.197.189 (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we made such an article, I'd argue for it to be called United Kingdom local elections, 2017 (England) as opposed to English local elections, 2017 because England has no standing as a political entity. England is just a geographical area and cultural sphere. It's political significance is limited to being the place where there is no devolved government sharing legislative power with the UK Parliament. Hence having a distinct page would be about as meaningful as having French regional elections, 2015 (Mainland regions) or Spanish local elections, 2015 (Castille). Just because there's an obvious geographical pattern to where the local elections are being held this year does not mean that the local elections are by themselves specifically 'English'. It's highly likely there will be council by-elections in Wales and Scotland that day too. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly would be clearer if the article were titled "English Local Elections". The point about the likelihood of by-elections in the other UK countries is valid, but they will be very much an aside. There is a separate page for our Welsh Local Elections of last year. Don't the English deserve the same courtesy?82.0.138.65 (talk) 02:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia project shouldn't be operating in terms of "courtesies". The fact remains that 'England' doesn't exist as a defined jurisdiction, and has its electoral practices and laws defined directly by the UK Parliament. In order to correctly categorise UK local elections we need to have a consistent year-by-year set of pages in the format of "United Kingdom local elections, XXXX" - it'd be confusing and disorderly to have some link to "English local elections" midway through, because then presumably a further click along the previous/next span on the infobox ought to take you to an English local elections page for years where there were also elections in Scotland and Wales. Maswimelleu (talk) 10:06, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whenever you find yourself arguing for something that is not just wrong but plain stupid, in the interests of "consistency", you should take stock. These elections, which only affect one of the UK's constituent countries, should not be at this title. What's the best solution? --John (talk) 12:04, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is that any agreed change ought to be across the entire Wikipedia project, and not just this article. Each prior article written in the same format should be changed to "English local elections, XXXX" if we change this one. I'm not averse to separating local elections by constituent nation but it'd be peculiar to just do it here. When creating or altering pages you need to consider how they integrate into the project as a whole. The best solution right now is to do nothing because creating a "local elections in England" series would take time and nobody so far has come forward to see the project to its completion. I don't typically frequent project pages, but might it be better to take such a proposal to a project and find people willing to implement such a change? There are local elections in England every single year, so there's quite a lot of work to do. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current UK title is fine. It's part of a series. I'd leave it as is. Bondegezou (talk) 21:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to restate my view that these are United Kingdom local elections and should be kept as such. An additional note: we also have to depend upon how reliable sources (e.g. the BBC) view these elections. When reporting the estimated national share of the vote, the BBC takes into account the whole UK. So if these were to be named 'English local elections', and the projected national share of the vote added to the infobox, that would be inaccurate because the projected share takes into account the whole UK. These elections are local elections within the UK - that would be the case if the only councils up for election were in Wales or Scotland too. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that with the Scottish and Welsh councils, every single council is up for election at the same time every 4 years. This allows us to compare seats and votes from election to election. This is not the case in England - some councils are only electing one third of councils, some aren't electing at all despite voting in 2014, and many councils just aren't voting at all this year. So the seats and votes cannot be compared year-on-year. An English local elections article would therefore be largely useless and definitely confusing. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as regards the user above who said "These elections, which only affect one of the UK's constituent countries, should not be at this title. What's the best solution?" - you are asking us to accept the premise that they shouldn't be at this title. Many of us don't accept this premise. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo seems fine to me. I don't think that there's a problem (see FriendlyDataNerdV2's very thorough argument), but were there a problem then maintaining the status quo is the best solution, per Maswimelleu's argument. The series refers to a collection of scheduled elections to councils across the United Kingdom each year. Wheresoever these happen to fall isn't really useful or relevant... Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a big stream of IPs editing the page against consensus. Do we just keep reverting or have the page semi-protected? Maswimelleu (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the page will get more attention (and more attempts to 'correct' the location) on May 3rd and after, it may be worth semi-protecting it FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put in a request which has now been implemented, so the page has semi-protection until 7 May. Maswimelleu (talk) 12:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Winchester[edit]

Can Winchester be changes from Black to Blue on the map Guyb123321 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Last election' figures[edit]

Just so we're all on the same page: the 'last election' figures in the infobox come from simply subtracting the councils that aren't up for election this time (listed below) from the 2014 council and councillor totals. So the 2014 totals were:

  • Lab - 2,121 seats, 82 councils
  • Con - 1,364 seats, 41 councils
  • LD - 427, 6 councils
  • UKIP - 166 seats
  • Green - 38 seats
  • Others - 146 seats

The following councils were up for election in 2014 but are not this year:

  • Bassetlaw
  • Bristol
  • Doncaster
  • Gloucester
  • Hertsmere
  • Purbeck
  • Rotherham
  • Stratford-on-Avon
  • Stroud
  • Warrington

In total, these councils elected 73 Labour Cllrs, 62 Conservatives, 18 Lib Dems, 12 UKIP, 5 Greens and 3 Others. 4 were Labour-controlled and 2 Conservative, with the rest NOC.

Thus a simple subtraction gives us the figures in the infobox, and thus a neutral order for the parties in the infobox based on the previous election result. Hope that all makes sense! FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information, FriendlyDataNerdV2 - I've used it to create an altered map for the infobox with these councils removed. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a reliable source (not merely my estimates!) for seats held going into these elections. Britain Elects is a widely-known poll site often cited by the media. There was no number given for Councils held going into the elections, but given the disparity between my estimates and the sources councillor figures I have removed councils for now. However Maswimelleu has pointed out that these are current seats, not seats won at last election. My preference is for seats won, and I would rather stick with those, however I have deferred to an external source for now. What do people think? Shall we use 'current seats' or 'last election' figures? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not include both? If there's only going to be one, I'd personally prefer 'last election', because it gives a straight comparison and should be the basis for change figures. Ralbegen (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We know that the current seats figure is accurate (http://www.opencouncildata.co.uk/index.php is another way to confirm it), so as long as the seats won last time figure is actually correct then we can include both. I'm not sure if all editors are aware that "seats won last time" means the last time the seats themselves were contested, not just the 2014 result. Where boundary changes are involved, certain seats have gone up early even though they ordinarily would have been contested in one or two years. If we have a definitive figure for that then it'd be wise to provide a clear reference for it and a note in the page source to remind editors not to change it or replace it with the 2014 figure. Maswimelleu (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This from the BBC would appear very useful. I think we should also include some brief explanation of the figures in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 09:46, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the BBC link Bondegezou - I would argue that the BBC's notional figures are the most useful and reliable data, I think we just should use those, especially as those will be the baseline figures from which the BBC's plus/minus changes will be calculated. But yes, an explanation of the figures will be good too. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 10:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also many thanks for that Open Council Data link, Maswimelleu! I'd not seen that resource before, that's very helpful. We can use that for the 'council control' figures I think. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest we use the BBC figures then for the seats, add a note to editors, have a 'seats before' section explaining the origin of the numbers, and use my estimates for 'council control', as the Open Council Data is about current council control (which has changed in some cases - e.g. huge numbers of UKIP councillors becoming independents). Does that sound ok folks? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 12:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Given there's some disagreement over who to include in the infobox, I thought I should open a discussion. I've had varying opinions on this but here's what I think at the moment:

  • Labour, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and UKIP all go in to these elections with 100+ councillors. The Greens go in (see 'Last election' figures above) with around 33. While this isn't entirely insignificant the gap between UKIP and the Greens is large enough to make the Greens not relevant in this particular election.
  • The projected national share of the vote in 2014 (when these seats were last contested) was Lab 31%, Con 29%, UKIP 17%, Lib Dem 13%, Others 10%. The Greens' figure is not known but given that 'Others' is 10% they clearly had less than the Lib Dems.
  • Only 3 parties won Councils: Labour, the Tories and Lib Dems. However, UKIP got a higher projected share than the Lib Dems.
  • It's always good to have consistency and the Greens are not in any previous infobox.

So my view is that the infobox should be Lab, Con, Lib Dem, UKIP only. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we're comparing with the 2014 elections, we should, for the reasons you've given, go with those four. However, there is also an argument that we should compare with last year's local elections, in which case you'd drop UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A fair point - though in this case the seats up for election were almost all elected in 2014, when UKIP got 17% of the vote. They were significant last time these seats were contested, so arguably there's a case to include them I think? That said you make a good point and I'd have no issue with that. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Greens should still be included. 33 seats I do not believe is insignificant. Regardless, this all comes down to personal perspective of what is and isn't significant, therefore we should judge on whether they are major parties. Overall the Green Party of England and Wales are relatively on par with UKIP in terms of British political significance. Adding the party does not take anything away from the article, it merely provides viewers with more information, therefore I don't see any disadvantage to including the Greens and ultimately believe if UKIP is to be included, GPEW should be also. Also, UKIP are included in the United Kingdom local elections, 2016 with 58 seats, a similar amount of seats to the GPEW's current total. Helper201 (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We usually judge by performance at the previous election, and a projected national vote share wasn't even calculated for the Greens at the 2014 election, so that's not suggestive of them having been significant. Bondegezou (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent Ofcom advice, and they are the preeminent RS for answering this question, is I think that the main parties in England are Con, Lab, LD and UKIP: see here. They will be publishing specific advice for the 2018 elections in due course. Bondegezou (talk) 22:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: There is more recent Ofcom advice here - and they're no longer going to produce lists of larger parties. My understanding is that they will provide information about parties' past performance so that broadcasters can make their own judgments (and be appealed against to Ofcom if they judge badly). Though I think their guidance is sound, which is to weight previous electoral performance above evidence of current political support, such as opinion polling. Given that, I think that including the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP in the infobox until the election. Ralbegen (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bondegezou: The Ofcom file you linked states that the GPEW was added to the list of main parties for the London Assembly and London Mayoral elections in 2016 because (?) of its performance in previous London Assembly elections and the 2014 European Parliament elections. I can't find anything about them not being included for future elections. I would point out that a projected national vote share not having been calculated for the Greens from the 2014 local elections is not great evidence for the party not being significant since then, and in particular the 2014-2015 'Green surge' and petition etc. regarding televised leaders' debates resulting in Ofcom ruling for the 2015 General Election that the Green Party were a major party indicates that they did indeed gain a lot of significance after the 2014 elections. In the 2015 GE the Greens went on to win more votes than all parties smaller than them combined (including Plaid Cymru and all Northern Irish parties) - the only other party to achieve this in that election was the Labour party, which to me indicates a clear three tiers (Con & Lab; then Lib Dem, UKIP, SNP and Green; then all others) of support. I also agree with Helper201 that UKIP seem to have started to be included back when they were at least as minor as the Greens are now. Adam Dent (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Election box for Labour (Momentum) UK[edit]

I've created an election box for Momentum, for use when candidates are definitely known, e.g.

  • Williams, Jennifer (16 November 2017). "'A decade-long fight for the soul of the Labour party' - how Momentum are gaining ground in Manchester". Manchester Evening News. Retrieved 22 February 2018.

Details are here, and an example of it in use can be seen here. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 04:53, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Momentum is not a seperate political party, nor is it an affiliated organisation like the Co-operative Party. This is not an appropriate usage of election boxes. There is not an electoral pact like there is with Labour Co-operative candidates. 139.222.197.189 (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For those joining the discussion you may want to look at the edit history of Higher Blackley and Moston, Manchester first to see the points already raised. Thanks. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should apologise for the rapid reverts, I should have been more considered and respectful. Sorry about that, it was my mistake. Hopefully this discussion can be had but I am sorry for the way I went about it before. Kindest regards 139.222.197.189 (talk) 11:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the IP that this this shouldn't be used. Momentum is not a political party and Yasmine Dar would not have been listed as a Momentum candidate on the ballot. We wouldn't be doing this for members of Progress. Number 57 12:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with IP and Number 57: this is not appropriate. Momentum is not a party. Bondegezou (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In line with what everybody else who has responded has been saying: Momentum is not a party, nor a candidate description used on ballots, nor a party description used by councils. This election box is not appropriate. Ralbegen (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confused as to why this would even be suggested. Momentum may be controversial but it's not a political party, it's a faction. We don't put 'Labour-Progress' or 'Lib Dem-Orange Book' or 'Labour-Fabians'. That's not how it works; it's not how British politics works at all. And to be honest I haven't really seen a justification for why this should even be done. The OP just did it and then asked people to justify why they thought it shouldn't be done. That's not how Wikipedia works, surely? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 20:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of someone using Wikipedia during the forthcoming elections in terms of looking up whether their local candidate was a member of Momentum. I really didn't think pointing it out as being a big deal - and actually I still don't.
The Orange Book is well... a book and Progress and the Fabian Society are both think tanks. I had a vague knowledge of Fabian and Progress but the Orange Book meant nothing to me until I looked it up. Momentum has 35,000+ members and its own constitution and is far better known.
Given the press coverage Momentum has had I think it is incredibly patronising and assumes a very limited general knowledge from the reader that they wouldn't have heard of Momentum and wouldn't know that it is part of the Labour Party.
Finally, I note with sadness that these edits have been reverted yet again while this discussion is still taking place. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Reliably sourced) discussions of the influence of Momentum can be included on relevant election articles. This can include (if sourced) names of specific candidates associated with Momentum. But election boxes should reflect what it says on the ballot paper and in official documentation. Bondegezou (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure how inventing a new party descriptor isn't original research, and I'm not sure that this can be done for a single organisation on the basis that it's got a large membership, its own constitution, and is well-known. I don't think it's incredibly patronising to expect the reader to not know that Momentum is part of the Labour Party, given that Momentum is not part of the Labour Party. It's also usual for these discussions to take place under the status quo ante, so I'm not sure where the issue is with the previous version of the page being restored. Ralbegen (talk) 22:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You have to be a member of the Labour Party to be a member of Momentum, so I'm not sure how Momentum is not part of the Labour Party. In any case I was replying to the example of think tanks and a followers of a book as being comparable to Momentum. My point was Momentum is neither a think tank or group following a book. I go back to my original point of why people use Wikipedia, there ought to be an 'at-a-glance' way of being able to tell if a candidate is a member of Momentum otherwise we risk straying into WP:CENSORship issue.
To quote the BRD / status quo ante policy given above (my bold): The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is an optional method of reaching consensus... Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed. Look at the article's history and its talk page to see if a discussion has begun. The link to this discussion was in the edit history of both articles. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, creating a new party descriptor out of thin air and changing the whole nature of how we describe political parties (shifting from simply listing what's on the ballot to also listing the candidate's factional affiliation) requires a little bit more discussion IMO before simply imposing it.
As for the reasoning given, Momentum is not affiliated to the Labour Party. It is a campaigning organisation with ideological links to the party leader, but that's it. A similar organisation would be the pro-Sanders Our Revolution in the United States; we do not describe Democrats who supported Bernie Sanders as 'Democrat-Our Revolution'. They are Democratic candidates and that's all. Momentum does not contest elections and does not appear on ballot papers because it is not a political party. So it should not have a political party template. This is not complicated. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not censorship to decline to describe someone as a 'Labour-Momentum' candidate because such a thing does not exist. There is no such thing as a Labour-Momentum candidate. That doesn't appear on ballot papers and there isn't a public list of who is and isn't a Momentum member. As for your argument about BOLD, I'd appreciate you responding to the point I made above - this is a HUGE change and is not just like changing a link on a page or a colour. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also: "there ought to be an 'at-a-glance' way of being able to tell if a candidate is a member of Momentum". Why? Why should there be? It's not a political party, it's a campaigning organisation. Should we start listing whether political candidates are members of the Electoral Reform Society? FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have the pro-Sanders Our Revolution joined the Democrats en masse and managed to get non-Sanders candidates who already hold seats deselected? I have no idea why you are bringing up the ERS that has no connection to any particular political party. I think you should stop playing 'hunt the comparable organisation to Momentum' I can save you a lot of trouble - there isn't one. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Vintage Feminist, it's pretty clear what consensus is here, so I don't see the value in arguing about BRD etiquette! It would perhaps be more useful to focus on other ways to cover Momentum and their role in the forthcoming elections. Bondegezou (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its clear what the consensus is... so far but it's not even been 24 hours. I didn't raise BRD, but if someone else is going to raise it and misuse it as a cosh defence for reverting then I am entitled to call them out for doing so. Why the exclamation mark? "There, there, there, calm down love", perhaps? If we are looking at other ways to cover Momentum we could start with the newspaper reference in this diff which has now been deleted on four separate occasions. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is consensus. Sometimes it doesn't need 24 hours to be clear. No timetable is given at WP:CONSENSUS. The exclamation mark is because you are clutching at straws. I hazard we all have Wikipedia ideas that go down in flames. I humbly suggest you recognise that this is one of those occasions and move on.
I will go look at the Moston article. Thank you for the pointer. Bondegezou (talk) 08:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back... I concur with those who removed the Momentum label from the Moston article for reasons much like those above against the election box. I suggest it would be more valuable to focus on creating prose content at Manchester City Council election, 2018 discussing the role of Momentum.
If individual politicians are notable enough to have their own articles, that is also a good place to discuss their intra-party positions. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Vintage Feminist, it's pretty clear what consensus is here, so I don't see the value in arguing about BRD etiquette! "I'm clutching at straws" about BRD etiquette??? Again, I did not raise BRD, but if someone else is going to raise it and misuse it as a cosh defence for reverting then I am entitled to call them out for doing so. If "I'm clutching at straws" about the election box then BRD is clearly off topic. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Have the pro-Sanders Our Revolution joined the Democrats en masse and managed to get non-Sanders candidates who already hold seats deselected?" Again you seem to have a particular view on what Momentum is, and on its tactics, that has shaped your edits. Most Momentum members were already Labour Party members before 2015. Perhaps a better US example would be the Justice Democrats who field candidates in primaries with the explicit aim of replacing Democrats they disagree with - they will still appear on the ballot as Democrats if they win those primaries, despite their affiliation.
As a side note, you seem to have a certain impression about internal Labour politics that's not accurate - Progress is not a think tank, it's a faction that fields candidates in internal elections and advances a policy agenda. It and Momentum are effectively equivelant. 139.222.197.189 (talk) 09:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral sources:
UK and US selection processes are not the same so its not comparing like with like. Progress is primarily a think tank and only has 3,000+ members in any case. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We're getting away from the point. At no point have you explained why a candidate should be labelled 'Labour-Momentum' when that description does not appear on the ballot. You can't just make an edit and ask us to produce evidence why it shouldn't be done. You have to explain it. 139.222.197.189 (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like. There is no formal alliance or association between Labour and Momentum. None. There's no such thing as a 'Labour-Momentum' candidate. It simply doesn't exist. Why, given that indisputable fact, should we describe a candidate as 'Labour-Momentum'? 139.222.197.189 (talk) 12:42, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see little reason to diverge from the current practice of just using the description that will appear on the Statements of Persons Nominated for each ward. There would've been arguably more reason for us to diverge for the Richmond Park by-election, where Zac Goldsmith was on the ballot as an Independent but everyone knew that he was a Conservative member receiving campaigning from high-profile local and national Conservatives and would take the Conservative whip again if he was elected (as he indeed did last June). Sceptre (talk) 20:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good analogy, Sceptre, and we dealt with that case by discussing the matter in the article's prose. We can do the same to discuss Momentum. Bondegezou (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, yes, that did happen with Goldsmith, but Momentum is not a political party. A Momentum-supporting Labour candidate who is elected to Parliament joins the Parliamentary Labour Party, not the Momentum Group. This whole thing doesn't really have any basis to it. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned above there's pretty clear consensus not to denote a separate Momentum tally here, given that Momentum is a sub-group of the Labour Party and not a distinct political movement. Any comparison to Labour Co-op isn't really appropriate because the Co-operative Party is a registered political party in spite of the fact that all Co-op candidates also stand as Labour. Discussions of informal groupings of candidates such as Momentum members, pro-Remain campaigners or the like should be discussed in prose, and not shoehorned into tables and infoboxes. Maswimelleu (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No overall control"[edit]

Both Castle Point and Wyre Forest have had Conservative majority administrations since at least the last set of elections, so why on earth are they shown as NOC in the previous control section? It's true that both were NOC in 2014, but that's not what the comparison's being made to, and in Wyre Forest's case the boundaries have changed completely since then anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:630:D0:8E0A:C127:F65F:4388:7977 (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I'll see what I can do to clarify this to either give "control in 2014" or "control prior to election". Maswimelleu (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info - I've updated the Conservative 'council control' numbers in the infobox. Cheers again FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FriendlyDataNerdV2: The council control numbers are listed under "Last election", so they shouldn't be updated for subsequent changes, should they? I've updated Plymouth from NOC to Conservative control, but I've not updated the infobox because I'm not sure of the status of it. Ralbegen (talk) 17:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah true, of course, I'll revert for now. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Elmbridge is NOC, but the article states Conservative majority. The council website lists more Liberal Democrat and various residents association and independent councilors than Tories. Is Elmbridge NOC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.140.241 (talk) 23:18, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

District Council by-elections[edit]

Hi, where I am in Southern Lincolnshire we have no main council election however in my ward there is a district council by-election taking place today and I was wondering if this could be added into the article in some way at all? (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:1098:19CB:EEB2:242A (talk) 18:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

By-elections are generally just listed at the relevant council election page (e.g. South Kesteven District Council elections) and sometimes on the article on the most recent full election (e.g. South Kesteven District Council election, 2011#By-elections between 2011 and_2015). Cheers, Number 57 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stud?[edit]

The BBC has predicted:

  1. Westminster= Tory
  2. Hillingdon= Tory
  3. Lambeth= Labour
  4. Croydon= Tory
  5. Brent= Labour
  6. Wandswoth= Tory

Trish pt7 (talk) (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be Updated[edit]

This BBC source is currently more updated and should be used to make the edits[1]2601:447:4101:41F9:8414:DC79:ECA7:278B (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

13 councils have yet to report in. Until they do, the results are not finalised. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swing[edit]

I've noticed that previous editors have had the vote share compared to the 2014 vote share. As every previous article shows, in terms of share of the vote, we track changes year-on-year, not vs the last time these seats were up. So changes should be vs the 2017 vote share. Please don't revert it back without explanation - it's not a mistake, it's common Wikipedia practice. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 06:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue about whether it's common Wikipedia practice, but if it is, it's a complete wrong and misleading practice. It was a completely different set of seats which were being contested in the 2017 local elections, due to the fact that that there are so many different models of voting and council composition across the UK. You can't compare an election in which all Welsh and Scottish and 35 English councils were contested with an election in which 150 only English councils were contested - 'Swing' is a like-for-like measurement, so it needs to be compared with the last time these seats were contested, in 2014. Star-one (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would have a point if the national share of the vote was the vote in those seats, but it isn't. It's an estimate of what the nationwide % results would be if repeated at a general election. Hence it makes an estimate of what the result would be if (in this case) Scotland, Wales, Conservative-voting areas etc were included. I am sure the actual, raw vote share of the vote in these areas is much friendlier to Labour owing to the dominance of London in the seats up for election, than the 35%-35% split shown in the PNS. As an estimate of the projected national vote is made each year, we compare each year with the year before it. We always have. The idea is to provide an estimate, year-on-year, of where the parties stand. So we compare the 2017 score with the 2018 score, to show how party support has changed. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To further clarify: the projected national share of the vote is *not* the actual share of the vote in these seats and councils. See, for example, the 2016 article for an instance of this. It is an estimate, based on sampling and calculations, of what the nationwide share of the vote would be if every council had been up for election. So the % figure isn't a comparison to last time. It's effectively an opinion poll based on the votes cast. Hence, we compare it with the same figure produced the year before. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More information from the authors of the PNS here: https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/ As well as here https://electionsetc.com/2018/05/02/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2018/ A notable line is:
"The BBC’s estimate of the PNS this year will therefore be calculated primarily by comparing the performance of the parties on Thursday with their performance in the local elections last year" (my emphasis). So the authors of the PNS explicitly advise comparing the results with the previous year, not 4 years ago.
I do not know why the BBC has chosen to break with its usual practice of comparing the results to the previous year, but their unusual decision should not affect how we do things. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been staying up all night to watch BBC Election Night for getting on for 40 years now, and they've never compared local elections year-on-year, they've only ever compared them with the last time the seats were contested. I'm not disputing the method of calculating the PNS, I'm disputing the method of calculating the Swing - if Labour got 30% of the PNS four years ago and 35% of the PNS this year, the swing is 5%, not the 8% which the article claims. Calculating swing between two completely different elections with the Scottish and Welsh parties not even factored in to the latter election is misleading. Star-one (talk) 14:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"They've never compared local elections year-on-year". Well, we do, and as explained above, the PNS is not the election result, but an estimate of what the national vote would be. There are reasons for why we use this comparison, we're not trying to mislead people.FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have explained before, this has been Wikipedia practice for at least 6 years, we can't change it solely for this article. I know Bondegezou is a longtime editor of Wikipedia election pages - Bondegezou would you be able to provide us with some clarity on this issue? I have a certain set of knowledge but I think you'd be able to help us here. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]


A tidbit for further reading, a piece on PNS by John Curtice, outlining some of the methodology and challenges, but why it is a good measure. https://electionsetc.com/2013/05/01/local-elections-vote-shares-the-bbc-pns-and-rallings-thrasher-nev-compared/ .
When discussing council/Councillor numbers, the BBC compares with the previous cycle 4 years ago, as we should and do, but I have seen the BBC and others, reasonably often, compare the year on year PNS. I'm happy with that approach. Bondegezou (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Existing practice of year-on-year PNS comparison and quadrennial comparison of councillor figures seem appropriate to me. I don't know whether there's a way to more clearly communicate the discrepancy in the article? Ralbegen (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tentatively suggesting changing the infobox field's name to "Swing from 2017". Ralbegen (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's helpful, because you're comparing apples and oranges. Different authorities were up last time, with 2017 being favourable to the Tories and 2018 being favourable to Labour. There hasn't actually been an 8% swing to Labour nationwide. The most accurate measure would be to compare each authority to when it was last up, and then tally up the swings to form a nationwide total. In some cases that's from 2014, others it's from 2016 (if they're districts electing in thirds). Maswimelleu (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To restate, we are not comparing apples and oranges, we are comparing an annually calculated national share of the vote that is designed to take into account those areas that are not up for election. As I said above:
More information from the authors of the PNS here: https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/ As well as here https://electionsetc.com/2018/05/02/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2018/ A notable line is:
"The BBC’s estimate of the PNS this year will therefore be calculated primarily by comparing the performance of the parties on Thursday with their performance in the local elections last year" (my emphasis). So the authors of the PNS explicitly advise comparing the results with the previous year, not 4 years ago. I feel that there remains some confusion over what the PNS is. It is not a summary of the results. It is an estimate based on samples and swings that takes into account areas that aren't up for election. Hence why Labour's PNS in 2016 was 31%, whilst its actual share of the vote in contested seats was 39%.
As for saying that "There hasn't actually been an 8% swing to Labour nationwide" - if you mean that Labour hasn't added 8% to its PNS since 2017, that's simply not the case. The PNS in 2018 was 8 points higher for Labour than in 2017. Ergo, its vote has gone up. It is that change that we are displaying. That seems reasonable to me FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Section - Projected House of Commons Results[edit]

Unsure if this has been done in previous elections but both BBC News and Sky News projected a national vote in terms of MPs if the local elections were replicated nationwide (see page 2 and 3 of the Guardian live blog below)

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/may/03/local-elections-council-england-2018-tories-labour-corbyn-may?page=with:block-5aec79b6e4b0123ab001f80a#liveblog-navigation

BBC News: Lab 283 (+21); Con 280 (-38); Lib Dem 22 (+10); Others 65 (+7) Sky News: Con 305 (-12); Lab 261 (-1); Lib Dem 26 (+14); SNP 35 (+-0); Others 23 (-1)Guyb123321 (talk) 11:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't done it before, no, but that's only because the news outlets haven't done it before. The BBC projection is worth including in the text of the 'analysis' section -but the Sky one was based off only half the results, which likely explains the difference between the two. Has Sky done an updated one? Thanks for raising it. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen reliable sources do this before, if not with as much emphasis. I'm not certain it's notable. No-one seriously thinks it's good psephology. Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fairly spurious analysis that doesn't warrant inclusion. Most of the stats we've already included, such as swing from the year before and projected national vote is fairly spurious already. Creating precedent for more of this would be bad, in my view. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All fair points. I'm happy not to include FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Map with a lot of purple on it[edit]

Sorry I do not understand the map that was uploaded. Given purple is the usual colour given to UKIP, the map, to me, implies UKIP won the election, when they lost the majority of their councillors. There are clearer maps on twitter which could be uploaded rather than this confusing one Rhyddfrydol2 (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the purple represents "result not yet in", but I agree it's not a good choice of colour. Perhaps the map creator MrPenguin20 can explain? Cheers, Number 57 20:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both! I was just using the light purple as a holding colour (for wards and councils hosting elections) as the wards were filled in. I see the confusion with UKIP, although theirs is a dark purple. By all means leave it off the page, pending it's completion though if the two of you feel it has the potential to confuse. MrPenguin20 (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swings on individual council election pages[edit]

Quick question - where councils are elected in thirds or halfs, should swings/percentage changes on individual wards be calculated from the last time the ward was up (i.e. 1 or 2 years ago in most cases) or last time that specific seat was voted on (i.e. 4 years ago in almost all cases) Guyb123321 (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve always done change vs four years ago, because that allows for local factors such as the individuals involved and means that swing makes sense in the context of a change in the winner. Ralbegen (talk) 05:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be done for when that seat was last up (normally but not always 4 years before). Nevertheless, the national projected vote change seems to be done on a year-by-year basis (which is flat out wrong for so many reasons) and people seem undecided on whether to factor by-election changes and defections in. Maswimelleu (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If an independent councillor stands for re-election as an independent in a council that elects in thirds, the change from the previous time the seat was up would not give any useful information. Ralbegen (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOC - Peterborough and Barnet[edit]

So: a conundrum. The BBC has chosen to count the Conservative results in Peterborough and Barnet as Conservative 'gains', because immediately prior to the elections the councils were in no overall control. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia articles usually compare with the previous election, which was 2014 in Barnet and 2016 in Peterborough. In both cases, the Conservatives won majorities. Which means they held these councils, they didn't gain them. These are the only examples affected by the gain/loss issue (the other councils gained from NOC were all in NOC at the last election too).

The question is, do we stick with this? My view is yes - we compare councillor numbers with last time (as does the BBC) so why compare councils with what was the case immediately prior to the election? It doesn't display changes in voting patterns, particularly in the case of Barnet where the Conservatives only lost control because 1 councillor quit the party and became an independent (it wasn't even a by-election). If we want to show changes in how people voted, we should show council changes from the last election. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BBC's reasoning is here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43460628#councilcontrol Strangely, that state that they compare councillor numbers with last time but council control with the eve-of-poll composition. Which seems inconsistent and confusing to me, but that's a personal view. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The formatting in London local elections, 2018 could be an appropriate solution for this article too? Ralbegen (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add to the confusion, the BBC has counted Three Rivers Council (rightly) as a Lib Dem gain from NOC, even though due to a by-election win by the Lib Dems in 2017 it was in fact majority Lib Dem on the eve of poll! This inconsistency, and the difficulty in tracking such small changes in hundreds of councils, is why I would make the case for the 'last election' comparison. It's easily provable. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why not include columns for both previous election and eve-of-poll control? Ralbegen (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you mean - it does help, aye. But the overall numbers are an issue too FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We usually do comparisons vs last election in my experience. Number 57 19:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, Three Rivers was indeed NOC on eve of poll - one LD councillor had defected to the Tories, and another had gone independent. It was the Lib Dems taking that seat back off the independent defector that brought it back to majority control. Maswimelleu (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, that explains it! FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general election reporting, the BBC, psephologists generally and us report change compared to the previous general election. By the same logic, councils should be compared to the previous election if all-up. However, when councils are elected by thirds or halves, it gets complicated. A liberal use of footnotes can help clarify, although it gets messy in complicated situations (e.g. Tower Hamlets London Borough Council election, 2018). Showing both as per London local elections, 2018 would be my preference. Bondegezou (talk) 09:57, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that it would be better to compare council control to how it was on the "eve of poll". In a general election article, the seat changes are compared to the last general election, not taking into account by-elections and defections. However, the "previous prime minister" refers to who was in office on the eve of poll. In a council election, the chance of the ruling group changing is more likely because some councils are elected in thirds or halves. So we should compare council seats to 2014, but council control to the eve of poll. 81.145.136.27 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the case being made is to include control at the last scheduled council election for each council rather than control after the election four years ago to match the cycle. (And for what it's worth, including eve-of-poll and previous election control would be my preference.) Ralbegen (talk) 16:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Map[edit]

The Current Map used for the infobox was quite obviously rushed, so I have made a temporary map to replace it until a vector map is created. I am just wondering weather to actually use it for the infobox
JDuggan101 (talk) 21:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Council level map of the United Kingdom Local Elections, 2018
Can I just say that I like the style of the map and they would be good for future/other local election info boxes Jonjonjohny (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aggregate results[edit]

I've noticed that some tables have appeared aggregating the results for councils that elected in thirds, the Metropolitan Boroughs, etc. I have removed them for a few reasons:

  • They don't tell us anything useful - there's nothing linking these councils except for the number of seats that were up. The London aggregate numbers tell us the figures for the whole city, whereas these were just showing completely unrelated councils.
  • They only showed seats contested, not total seats won, which isn't exactly a results table.
  • This is a summary page for the whole of England's elections; if people want to see the results for individual councils they can click on the links.

FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britain Elects sources[edit]

So this is a good discussion not just for this local election but future ones too. But Britain Elects have collated all the election datahere, as well as for 2017, and put the vote tallies and shares. What are editors thoughts on these figures being used in the results table? The BBC national share could be put with it for comparison. Jonjonjohny (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think should be included? Information for the overall results table, or for individual councils? Ralbegen (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no. votes, vote share and the BBC's national projection for the overal results table. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that could work! The BBC's national projections are already in the prose, and it's the sort of information that would fit nicely into a table. Ralbegen (talk) 13:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_United_Kingdom_local_elections&oldid=1196763993"