Talk:2007 National Assembly for Wales election

Others
As we get closer to the elections we will be posed with the problem of the being more and more constituencies with more than five candidates - that is more than one "other". This is already the case in Yyns Mon where the "other" presently listed is Jeff Evans. However recently Peter Rogers a former Conservative AM for North Wales announced he is to stand as an Independant- does this make him a more significant other and how should it be approached going forward as more conflicts like this occur? Cp6ap 23:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Constituency Candidates
Would it be possible to list the candidates by party (for instance like this)

Boundaries
Constituency boundaries will change for the 2007 election, not 2011? And what about electoral regions? Laurel Bush 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Yes and no constituency boundaries at the edge of regions are being changed the only constituency boundary change that will effect a region is the creation of Dwyfor Meirionnydd which will be in Mid and West Wales despite including part of the soon-to-be-defunct Caernarfon constituency (which is currently in North Wales&mdash;so even less of North Wales will be in the North Wales constituency). [forgot about that one somehow...]&mdash;Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Regions and party lists
The article should include info about regions and party lists. Constituencies elect only two-thirds of Assembly Members. Laurel Bush 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I've added the BNP to the list, as they are fielding a full slate of candidates. SpringHeeledJack 13:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to the images?
What happened to the images that are not Rhodri Morgan? Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mike German and Nick Bourne are not featured on here with their images. Who the hell removed them and why? Amlder20 21:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ive just written to Plaid Cymru to supply images of their members of free use to post hereDrachenfyre 10:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Welsh Lib Dem ones can be lifted from their website no problem (http://www.welshlibdems.org.uk/e-whoweare_candidates.asp). Permission has been given. --The Saturday Boy 09:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Blogs
Should we add links to these? I found one or two that look interesting.Drachenfyre 11:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As the link to my blog has been removed I would be quite interested to know what other editors think. It was 'vanity' publishing in one sense, but on another viewpoint shouldn't there be a link to candidate blogs where available and to the National / Wales web pages for all the parties? A candidate, 23.14, 18th April 2007.

'Opinion Polls'
The IWA forecast given in the article is just that -- a forecast, not a poll. AFAIK there have been no opinion polls for the Welsh Assembly election. I'll change the details; if opinion polls come out in the papers they can be added in a different section. Gareth 12:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I hven't been able to find any polls either. If I do, though, I think they should go together with this forecast because they are essentially about the same thing - predicting how the election will turn out. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I found some 'predictions' on the blogsite, but do not necessarily feel they should go in the artical because they were 'predicted' by intetested partiesDrachenfyre 08:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

What to include in regional lists (& Notional Election 2003)
Is it necessary to add prospective reserve candidates to the regional party lists (i.e.: 5th and 6th place `candidates')? I intentionally didn't add those because I thought they weren't notable enough.

I've also noticed that Cllr. has started being prefixed to the names of candidates. Is this relevant and doesn't it go against rule 2 of Manual of Style (biographies)? AM is different because postnominals are allowed by MoS, and noting that they are currently members of the same assembly they are standing for is directly relevant.

On a related note, it might be a good idea, for those that are AMs, to note (with an asterisk or similar) if they are incumbents (for that region) as opposed to currently being AMs for a different region or constituency.

BTW, I was going to add footnote references to the table but I'm not sure how one does that without having lots of identical footnotes.

Also, am I the only one who doesn't understand why that section is titled Notional Election 2003 instead of Boundary changes?
 * --Regarding whether "prospective reserve candidates " should be added I'd say yes. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia so I would say say should seek to be comprehensive.  If "prospective reserve candidates" go on to become full candidates in future elections then this will be useful information.  It's also not out of the bounds of possibility that they may be called upon to be an AM. Several list AM's stood for Westminster in 2005 only losing narrowly - that combined with a death or regination for another reason and you might need a 5th placed list member. Cp6ap 09:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * --Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "notional election" was first termed in 1983 when the BBC combined with ITN to do a calculation for the 1979 election on the 1983 boundaries and has since stuck. Could I also ask that the data I have imported from Excel re the notionals in 2003 be wikified in the format shown (with colours if possible) Harry Hayfield 08:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do know what it means; just couldn't find any notional results in the section. I will try to wikify now although I don't have long on this computer (in library).
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 10:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It is quite difficult to deal with the data as it is not delimited and does not match the format of our election data tables (which it needs to for consistency and so we can use the templates). It would be a great help if you re-inserted the data delimited (or, indeed, attempted to convert it to the format used for the 2003 NAW election).  (Also see Template:Election Summary Begin and Template:Electiontable.)  I have now found the data on their website  but it isn't particularly easy to deal with either.  I will, however, add a reference.
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 12:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I have figured out a way to show the info but why are the tables being shifted to the bottom of the page? Harry Hayfield 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

English Democrats
Why exactly are they even standing?

Because of the Monmouthshire question. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monmouthshire They want a referendum on whether Monmouthshire wants to be Welsh or English. And as it is now in Wales, they need to stand for the Welsh Assembly in order to do that. Swahilli 23:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, but I thought they'd have needed to pursue that through Westminster would they not, considering the transfer Monmouthshire across the so-called 'border' would affect both Wales and England?


 * Formally yes but in de facto politics a strong vote in the Assembly election would give weight to their calls. It's not different from the numerous "[sub-area] independents" groups who get elected to councils calling for them to be separated out (usually because they feel the coastal areas/island/rural/bay etc... loses out to the more populated area) even though the council doesn't have the power to partition itself. Timrollpickering 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Which parties to include?
I dont see the candidates from this party

I found a list,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.117.66 (talk • contribs) 2007-03-31T19:35:42


 * We've got a problem really, who gets listed in the regional list? I'd like to see Communist party of Britain included, but really them, the Socialist Alternative and BNP are hardly noteworthy enough yet to be included, unless we're going to add all of them (which would be crazy, given that they are already filling the full length of the page). Mikebloke 14:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC) additional: English Democrats too in the Wales south east list.


 * Why not add them, the BNP are on there, so why not the communist party? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.93.27 (talk • contribs) 2007-04-06T17:38:22


 * Looking at the statement of candidates nominated for North Wales (not on the WWW yet but I'm sure some regions and constituencies are), there are quite a lot of parties: BNP, Conservatives, Communists, Christian People's Alliance, Greens, Labour, Plaid, SLP, UKIP, Welsh Christian Party, LibDems. If there isn't already a policy on this, I feel we should include them all to be fair and stop an edit war.  We can always put the regional list tables the other way round (which would also make them a lot easier to edit) if the number of columns is an issue.
 * Does anyone disagree?
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 10:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless anyone can figure out a way to display all the parties (and any independents) without stretching the page, it'd be best to limit it to lab-lib-con-Plaid like the top of the page is. If we're going to do all of them however, how about reversing the system of the tables, so that the parties are listed in the rows rather than columns. It might even require using lists rather than tables. Mikebloke 12:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The official and final public lists will be published next week I think (at the moment people can still withdraw). I would agree with Mike Bloke that on the regional lists we should go for the four main parties because of space issues - perhaps putting the minor parties somewhere else - for the constituency lists I say four main parties and one most significant other. Cp6ap 20:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The lists should have been formally published by noon today (and the deadline for withdrawal was noon yesterday) (see the EC timetable [MS Word I'm afraid]). BTW, should we mark in the table the prospective candidates who we have confirmed are now officially candidates with an asterisk or something?
 * Also, in case, it wasn't clear I, for one, would be opposed to there being no mention that a party is contesting the election due to their not being deemed notable enough (not only on principle, but because any decision would be arbitrary and even if you agree on a way of measuring notability, do you include the top 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 most notable parties?). (Cp6ap: Space issues would as I've said be solved by turning the table round which would also greatly ease editing. Also, I'm not sure how you reconcile your parent comment with your reply to me at .)
 * Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 14:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Election Map
For this election and previous Welsh Assembly Elections there should be an electoral map on Wikipedia showing the areas where which parties were voted in majority. This map should appear on the article showing first the constituency votes and another the regional votes. Amlder20 11:07, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

John Marek
John Marek, although the founder of Forward Wales, is listed in the Statement of Persons Nominated for Wrexham as "Independent/Annibynnol" and not as a Forward Wales candidate. See http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/electoral/naw_2007/nop_wrexham.pdf Also John Marek's own campain website (http://www.johnmarek.org/ clearly states "John Marek: your INDEPENDENT candidate for Wrexham" I have therefore changed the reference to Forward Wales to reflect this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ceiriog (talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Trish Law
The bbc states:
 * "To work out which seats are treated as gains and losses the BBC compares the results of the 2003 election with those of the current ballot. This is why Blaenau Gwent is being treated as an independent "gain", even though Trish Law first won the seat at a by-election in 2006."
 * http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2007/welshasssembly_english/html/804.stm

Should the page be updated to reflect this? Tswsl1989 15:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger
I think that National Assembly for Wales 2007 boundary changes should be merged into this article. It is actually a table of notional elections rather than anything about the boundary changes per se (which is something we could have more on). Maybe, this article needs splitting up, but having this table in a separate article really won't make much difference.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 23:03, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg
Image:Rhodri Morgan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nick Bourne1.jpg
Image:Nick Bourne1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 12:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Opposition - Plaid Cymru
Plaid Cymru has not been in opposition since May 2007. This needs changing as in Wales at the moment, the Conservatives are the opposition. 82.11.221.164 (talk) 15:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting Numbers
Could someone check the totals of the votes? Because in the current table, the Tories got 591 fewer votes than Plaid Cymru in the constituencies, but 4,000 more votes in the regional lists, so how did the Tories end up receiving 3 fewer seats? Wee Jimmy (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because the Additional Member System isn't pure Proportional Representation and there are various factors that can create this distortion.


 * Firstly it's important to note that technically speaking there wasn't one election but five separate regional elections. So different turnouts in different regions can create anomalies on a national level. Furthermore one region does not "correct" another.


 * Secondly with only about 12 seats in each region it's possible to get anomalies due to both overhangs (when a party wins more constituency seats than its list share "entitles" them to with the result that other parties get squeezed) and the simple fact that votes get rounded up or down and a slight difference in list votes can mean the difference between taking or missing the final list seat.


 * For instance in North Wales (which has 9 constituencies and 4 top-ups) the constituencies went 5 to Labour, 3 to Plaid, 1 to the Conservatives and none to the Lib Dems. Although the Conservatives got about 5,000 more votes than Plaid on the list, it translated into a D'Hondt entitlement of 4 seats each. Labour were also entitled to 4 seats and the Lib Dems to 1. But because Labour already had more than its entitlement, this meant there were 5 claimants (3 Conservative, 1 Plaid, 1 Lib Dem) and only 4 seats to go round. The Conservatives were squeezed out of one seat by the overhang.


 * In South Wales West Labour took all 7 constituencies but only had a list entitlement of 6. Again this meant there were 5 claimants (2 Plaid, 2 Conservatives, 1 Lib Dem) for 4 list seats. Plaid here outpolled the Conservatives by just 2700 list votes, but it was enough to ensure Plaid rather than the Conservatives got a second list seat.


 * South Wales East was complicated by independent Trish Law's victory in Blaenau Gwent. The other 7 constituencies went 6 to Labour, 1 to the Conservatives. Labour had a list entitlement of 6 seats, the Conservatives 3, Plaid 2, the Lib Dems 1 and Trish Law 0. Once again that works out as 5 claimants (Conservatives 2, Plaid 2, Lib Dems 1) for 4 list seats and once again it was the Conservatives who missed out because of the precise vote shares.


 * South Wales Central saw the constituencies go 6 Labour, 1 Conservative, 1 Lib Dem, despite a list entitlement of 5 Labour, 3 Conservatives, 2 Plaid and 2 Lib Dems. Yet again there 5 claimants (2 Conservatives, 2 Plaid, 1 Lib Dem) for 4 seats. However this time round the Conservatives got their full entitlement and the Lib Dems missed out.


 * Mid and West Wales was the only region with no overhang. Here the seats went Plaid 4, Conservatives 2, Lib Dems 2. The list entitlement was Plaid 5, Conservatives 3, Labour 2, Lib Dems 2. As a result there were only 4 claimants (1 Plaid, 1 Conservative, 2 Labour) for 4 seats.


 * In conclusion the Conservatives missed out as they got squeezed by overhangs that cost them one seat in each of three regions (and also missed out on some of the relevant constituency seats by very little), whereas Plaid were more fortunate in having sufficient votes in the crucial places. Had there been no overhangs then the overall result would have been Labour 23, Conservatives 15, Plaid 15, Lib Dems 7, Independent 0.


 * The result of all this shows that even PR systems can produce anomalies that stack up to create a disproportionate result. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 00:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)