Talk:2017 United Kingdom local elections

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

Inclusion of Greens in infobox[edit]

An editor recently added the Green party to the infobox. I undid this revision in line with previous infoboxes and the discussion page for the 2016 elections. My reasoning would be thus:

  1. The Greens are not a major party for the purposes of the infobox, holding only 34 councillors out of 4,851. They hold zero councils.
  2. They are quite some distance behind other parties - the next largest party, UKIP, holds 146 seats going into these elections, over 100 more.
  3. The Greens won more seats in previous elections than they hold going into these ones (e.g. 87 in 2015) but were not included, because readers want to see at a glance the changes of the main parties.

However, I can definitely see an argument for including the Green Party but given the precedent against it I'd prefer to do so after a discussion and some consensus.

Sidenote - if anyone can find a more info-box friendly picture of Jonathan Bartley & Caroline Lucas, that'd aid the presentation if we do decide to go with them. At the moment we only have a landscape photo and it doesn't fit, and I don't know what the process is for cropping these photos. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 15:54, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, FriendlyDataNerdV2. I see that it is not an easy question. I think the discussion in 2016 is a red herring, as the local elections then exluded the SNP and Plaid Cymru. If it is about holding councils (at least, councils being contested), only the Conservatives, Labour and SNP should be on the list. In terms of seats held, I suggest there is a 'big two' (Labour and Conservative); a 'big four' (plus Lib Dems and SNP) and a 'big seven' (plus Plaid Cymru, UKIP and the Greens). Excluding some parties based on certain criteria seems fair, but excuding one party seems perverse. I would be in favour of showing either two, four or seven parties. --Wavehunter (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To revive this: the Greens won more seats than UKIP and I think the argument for including them is now undeniable. The question is how we do that as it would stretch it to 7 parties. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current infobox goes up to 9 parties, if there is agreement to add the Greens. Personally, I think the current infobox is clunky and the big photos of national leaders less relevant here. I'd suggest switching to the more compact template infobox legislative election, as at French legislative election, 2017.
However, I don't think there is actually good reason to add the Greens here. Rather, I think we should drop UKIP! Bondegezou (talk) 17:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on removing UKIP. I don't think there's a desire to change the infobox, especially as these are lots of different institutions rather than one single one like with France. Will remove UKIP FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think UKIP should be removed - or at least, Greens should be included if UKIP are dropped. It looks odd with only 5 parties. -- Tannlos (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
UKIP only have 1 councillor. We go by seat count, and by that measure, UKIP are out. Quite frankly the idea of including a party with only a single councillor is silly IMO. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the Greens aren't a major party, why is the SNP, which doesn't have any councils either? Wh1ter0se (talk) 21:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The SNP is undeniably a major party, as they are the government in Scotland. As someone said above, the info box looks weird with only 5 parties, and as the Greens won more seats and votes than UKIP, they should be given the 6th spot, IMO. minombreescow 21:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The idea that we determine who is a major party in this election on the basis that the infobox looks better with 6 pictures than 5 is silly.
The Greens have no councils and less than a fifth of the councillors of Plaid (and the number they've got is only achieved by combining the totals for two separate parties, the party of E&W and the Scottish party). The natural breakpoint is after Plaid. Bondegezou (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's fair. I'd be quite happy with Con, Lab, LDem, SNP, Plaid, I think on balance that's the right call. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:05, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

Can we state below whether we think the Greens should feature in the infobox. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I don't mind especially whether the sixth party is UKIP or the Greens. The collapse of the UKIP vote is significant, and the party was significant in local government. For this reason, perhaps UKIP ought to feature in the infobox. Equally, the Greens have more seats. Regardless, without a sixth party, the infobox is aesthetically offensive. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Infoboxes show the major parties in the elections. That determination is not made based on aesthetics. For reasons stated above, I don't think the Greens qualify. Bondegezou (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Greens control 0.9% of council seats in England and Wales, and 1.5% in Scotland. They won nearly 1% of seats in this election. Equally, UKIP won 5% of the vote on the 4th, despite losing every seat they held. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And we often use a 5% cut-off in UK election article infoboxes. Those are tiny numbers for the Greens, so we exclude them. Bondegezou (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would you compromise on re-including UKIP on the grounds that they won 5% of the vote, and that the collapse in their support is significant? L.R. Wormwood (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see how a compromise on whether or not to includes the Greens is to include UKIP instead...? I don't think either party should be in.
Past consensus has generally been that the infobox reflects the winners, not those notable for their losses. Yes, UKIP's collapse is an important part of the story of these elections, but I don't think that's a reason to include them in the box. Bondegezou (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Greens[edit]

I feel it's relevant to add, whatever we decide, we should avoid conflating the Scottish Greens and English and Welsh Greens. Though they are conflated in opinion polls and BBC tables, they are separate parties with different political philosophies. I notice someone 'corrected' the English/Welsh result to 40 Green seats, which isn't quite right - the English/Welsh Greens got 21 seats (+1), the Scottish Greens 19 (+5). So if we do end up including them this should probably be made clear. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Council by-elections[edit]

A number of local council by-elections have been added to this page recently, and as far as I can see, council by-elections have never been included here in the main local election articles before. Should they be kept here? If so, the list is incomplete as there are 100+ district and borough level wards in England holding by-elections on 4th May which would all need to be added. Pilchard (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather trivial isn't it? Council by-elections are barely reported even in local newspapers. If we did start including by-elections on local election articles, then logically not only would we have to include those on May 4th, but the hundreds of by-elections that will be held throughout 2017 away from election day. The article is titled UK local elections 2017, not UK local elections 4 May 2017 after all. I advise their removal. QueenCake (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source listing total being contested on 4 May, and therefore added only that figure. SocialDem (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unitary Authorities[edit]

The Isles of Scilly is a single-tier authority but it is not a Unitary Authority. --MBRZ48 (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England County County Council Map[edit]

Why is there no double map for the English county councils elections as the current one for the counties includesScotland and Wales. (2A02:C7F:5621:2A00:4CD4:CDDD:C7A:CC31 (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Lincolnshire[edit]

Please can the electtoral map for Lincolnshire please be urgently updated as there are now only 70 wards as opposed to 77 shown on the map. Thanks (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

First overview map[edit]

The first overview map of the results has 11 different colours. This does not work. You cannot tell the different shades of blues or greys apart. It's trying to fit too much in. Can it be simplified, removed, or split into two maps? Bondegezou (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boundary changes[edit]

The BBC counts for Scotland are calculated on a theoretical 2012 seat count (i.e. that's what the parties would have won in 2012 if those changes had been in effect then). This seems to be used to show a seat loss for the SNP (with this result being presented as an anti-independence verdict by Scottish voters across BBC media). However, even though there were boundary changes in England and Wales as well, the BBC has done no such calculation for a theoretical seat share of a new boundary 2012 in those two areas. I have not made any changes to the page and would do so only if the BBC either adds such a theoretical calculation for England and Wales or changes the Scotland one, as I defer to the more experienced Wikipedia writers and editors on this issue, but I feel this approach gives a misleading impression in the infobox as Wikipedia is here reflecting an apparent political interpretation of the numbers. I expect the SNP's total vote share to be lower than 2012, which is a result that is unaltered by boundary changes in my view, but can I ask what would be an acceptable solution to this apparent differential treatment of Scotland for now? Small candles (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC did do a calculation for new boundaries in England and Wales.
They state here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39500900 that "These figures are estimates because there have been boundary changes since they were last contested". So there is no differential treatment, they have made these estimates for all the nations. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 21:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I had looked at a different page where only Scotland was given as estimated. But your linked page clearly shows different numbers to the seats won before for all of them.Small candles (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it would be more sensible to show the actual change rather than against a notional value? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.142.158 (talk) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment the page looks nonsensical, somehow declaring the SNP's 431 to be 7 seats less than the 425 in 2012. Would it not make sense to simply record the actual numbers and the actual change, then note that "some analysis [cite BBC] calculates this 6 seat gain as a 7 seat loss due to boundary changes" (and ditto for any other cases)? Is there precedent for using a private estimate as baseline? Conrad Hughes (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we cite what is reported. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 11:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We frequently use notional changes for general elections, this isn't something new. The BBC is the go-to reliable source for election results for these pages, and unless an alternative source can be produced, we use this one. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can I add: there are multiple people who keep changing the SNP figure to +6 without justifying it or citing sources. If people have a reliable source that contradicts the BBC, please outline it here, otherwise the status quo stands. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We have that reliable source that contradicts the BBC. https://stv.tv/news/politics/1387707-snp-win-most-council-seats-as-tories-make-large-gains/ Is the BBC the go-to source if it turns out to be unreliable? They seem to be applying a "seasonally adjusted" method which distorts the facts in this case, especially in light of the SNP's vote share increasing on 2012.Broxi (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC has established previous notional results, which are linked to on this page, and shown changes from that. It doesn't "distort the facts". They're just using notional results. And we do not have any 1st preference tallies yet, so we have no idea if it has increased or not. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Use of notional results after boundary changes is sensible and standard practice. But we should make clear what we are doing and point to raw figures as well, using text, footnotes &c. Bondegezou (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please enforce the consensus on the Scottish local elections page also. Some think that the direct changes should be shown instead of notional results despite the fact that notional results have been used in every single election in British history, shown on WP. (And yes, I have done research so if you disagree, show me a single past election with boundary changes where notional results weren't used and the direct comparison was made disregarding change of boundaries.) In each of the past elections, general as well as local, the boundary changes meant that the direct comparison wasn't so much as even referred to. Because it's wrong as it doesn't take into account the changes. Just because some Scottish nationalists are vocal about there political views doesn't mean we break with exemplar rules to display these kinds of things. [PS Sky News backs the BBC data] 49.200.244.178 (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You consider BBC to be an impartial reliable source? Really. You're kidding yourselves. BBC distort the news on a daily basis in Scotland and have been doing so since IndyRef 2014 was first announced by Alex Salmond in 2011. Their main evening TV news bulletin hasn't been named 'BBC Misreporting Scotland' for nothing. The output by that British Establishment organisation is nothing but poison. One of their newspaper reviewers even told the entire UK that the Tories had taken over Glasgow City Council in the Council Elections last week - absolute rubbish. And Their lies and misinformation hasn't stopped. The BBC are consumate LIARS, working for the British Establishment. Evidence? See 'London Calling' about BBC Bias during Scottish 2014 IndyRef. www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXQYuLUAbyw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.68.113 (talk) 10:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BBC releases notional explanation[edit]

The BBC has released the notional boundaries explanation. It is available at http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-39850440. I hope this settles the matter once and for all. 49.200.119.74 (talk) 08:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the BBC omit from its BBC web page the following paragraphs from Prof Denver's methodology:

"This is certainly a rough and ready way of doing things but there doesn’t appear to be any alternative."

and...

"The SNP increase of 14 is largely explained by increases in the number of councillors to be elected. In five councils (Aberdeen, Aberdeenshire, Edinburgh, Glasgow, North Ayrshire, and North Lanarkshire) my estimates gave the SNP 16 extra seats compared to the actual 2012 results – but there was an increase of 25 in the number of seats available in these council areas."

Why do you think the BBC selected the two paragraphs (above) to omit from the professor's explanation? Here's one possible thought - the BBC is institutionally BIASED and works as nothing more than the mouthpiece of the British Establishment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.68.113 (talk) 10:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do we allow Wikipedia to become party-politicised? By debating the inclusion / exclusion of parties, or allowing 5 year old notional results as a measure of current results, then Wikipedia has become as politicised as the cretins that make the vandalism entries 5 minutes after a political result.

Be better than that, people. Include as many parties as possible. Show the parties exist, then let readers form their own opinion as to said party's value in the political system. Notional results from 5 years ago are of zero value today. 'What might have happened' is a zero value measure. Five years ago the 16-20 year olds were too young to vote. The people that died in the past five years did not get a vote. People moved away. People moved in.

If you put any real value in notional results from 5 years ago, you show a complete lack of knowledge of psephology and/or are too party-politicised to be allowed to edit Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.92.120.162 (talk) 11:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should certainly link to an explanation of how the notional results were calculated, and make clear when we're using notional results. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This flies in the face of what Wikipedia is about, which is impartial and accurate, not "notional". If you want to include the BBC's dodgy numbers, they should be an addendum, not shown as the actual result - because it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiggsy (talk • contribs) 14:49, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland notionals[edit]

Why are the Scottish results treated differently from the English ones. There were also boundary changes in England, yet only the notional results are used. Seat change from different boundaries is utterly meaningless, and shouldn't be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8004:AB20:40F8:1C2B:5341:E26E (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England, Wales and Scotland, across multiple articles, are all being treated the same, using notional results when appropriate. Bondegezou (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The non-notional results aren't reported for England. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:643:8004:AB20:3578:9D0B:40B4:D3BD (talk) 07:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there are some results you think should be reported that aren't, please either add them to the article or provide a link here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maps[edit]

Hi. I've uploaded several maps. Hope they are useful, but feel free to re-arrange or remove some of them. And probably someone can figure out why certain areas (combined authorities where mayoral elections took place) are not properly displayed on the "vote share" map? (while they are correctly displayed on the "majority size" map and also on the "vote share" one if you open it in Commons). Ivan Volodin (talk) 17:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England results[edit]

A thought: is it useful to include the England popular vote totals here? The Scottish and Welsh totals reflect the results for every council in those countries, but England only had 34 councils out of 358 up. For now I have added a note to clarify this, but the casual reader might assume these were the results for the whole of England. I'd be minded to remove the popular vote totals for the England results table as it gives an inaccurate presentation of results - they're not results in England, they're results in 34 councils of 358. But I didn't want to make a change unilaterally. FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2017_United_Kingdom_local_elections&oldid=1196741994"