Talk:2014 United Kingdom local elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


I will now start the deletion process, not sure how you do it, so it might take me some time to do but it will be done!Nick 14:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick - I think you are meant to add the PROD box to the article, not the Talk page. However, I'd like to keep this article now, so the PROD is moot and I've removed it. If you wish to go to the next step, then see WP:AFD and follow instructions there. Everyone else - there is context here, see Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2013 for details. Nick has admitted creating the article in order to make a point following a series of edit disputes over infoboxes at Talk:European Parliament election, 2009 (United Kingdom) and Talk:Next United Kingdom general election and, to make amends, is now seeking its deletion. However, I feel that's all by the by. Ignore all that, however it came about, I think this article is now useful and valid. Bondegezou (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
If we are to keep this article (long, deep sigh), it will need to be fleshed out with details from the corresponding elections (I am assuming Nick understands how the local election cycle works). The corresponding elections can be found at the United Kingdom local elections, 2010. doktorb wordsdeeds 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh right ok, woops. Well, if your happy to keep it then thats fine. I was only deleting it because it seemed everyone else wanted it gone and I could see their reasoning. That said, I'm happy for it to stay and be fleshed out if that's what others want, it's not like it's a point of reporting things innacurately, I'm not going to get upset about that. Yea I'm aware of the election cycle, every seat is contested every 4years, so yea, therefore all these seats were last contested in 2010. I'll look at it shortly, perhaps not tonight but as soon as.Nick 18:56, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Have coppied figures over from 2010. Nick 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that's your lot. All done, call that my punishment for creating the page in the first place! Nick 21:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Updated information to reflect current council control[edit]

I have taken a great deal of time to change all of the 'current control' councils to reflect their current status. This is consistent with the previous local election pages. Please do NOT undo this! It is no use to anyone to see how the district councils used to be in 2010 - the page should reflect how they are before and after the 2014 elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask doktorbuk to change his approach. It is important to leave clear comments on the talk page! It might well be the case that you are right but you are frankly being rude by closing down discussion and saying no no no all the time. If you explain things more clearly you will perhaps save time and avoid engaging in prolonged edit warring. It seems that this is becoming a problem for you doktorbuk, please learn to respect other editors...yes even the IP's! (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Yet again, doktorbuk is undoing revisions which reflect current council control. This time he has put as the reason for his edit that this is to comply with the WP Crystal Ball policy. There is absolutely nothing in that rule to back up what he is doing. I will repeat - ALL UK local election pages reflect the council control directly before and after the election. Nobody is 'predicting the future' here - we are simply stating what the current situation is based on the last set of local election results. I would also point out that doktorbuk has a conflict of interest here. He mentions that he is a member of the LibDems, and I have a feeling he keeps vandalising this page to try and make the current situation look better for his party. (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

'Previous Control' refers to the status of the council directly BEFORE the election, not a 'like-for-like' basis from 4 years ago[edit]

To avoid further confusion, let's all be clear that the 'Previous Control' column has always referred to the status of the council directly before the election (ie. as it is now). It does not mean what the council control was 4 years ago when these councillors were last up for election. If you refer back to the 2013, 2012, 2011 pages etc. all of the pages are consistent with this. So please let's not have any more edits changing the councils back to 2010 status, as this is no use to anyone and is inconsistent with previous local election pages. Thanks. (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For reference here, please see the BBC election 2012 page for Stockport which shows this (ie. stays at NOC, rather than NOC gain from LibDem which it would be if compared on a 'like-for-like' basis from 4 years ago). Doctorbuk - please stop vandalising page now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IpswichBlue74 (talkcontribs) 03:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Further evidence here from Guardian / Telegraph - please check for Stockport and see that results are compared from the previous council directly before the election (which was NOC), not on a 'like-for-like' basis from 4 years ago (which would be LibDem).
IpswichBlue74 (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Derby City council elections.[edit]

Derby city council is currently elected by thirds but this years elections (2013) have been postponed due to a consultation over moving to whole council elections every 4 years. [1]

I don't think that it should be in the list at the moment as no decision has been made, or if it is in the list then a note should be added to clarify the situation. Spudgfsh (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 May 2013[edit]

| image4 = Nigel Farage | colour4 = | leader4 = Nigel Farage | leader_since4 = 5 November 2010 | leaders_seat4 = | party4 = United Kingdom Independence Party | last_election4 = | seats4 = | seat_change4 = | popular_vote = | swing4 = | 1data4 = 0 | 2data4 = 0 | 3data4 = | 4data4 = (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: solely on the basis that the article was unprotected after the request was made. If the article becomes protected again please reactivate this request. —KuyaBriBriTalk 21:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

UKIP not fourth party[edit]

The fourth party in the 2014 elections is the Green party -- they have 18 seats up for election in the 161 councils up, compared with 15 for UKIP. If there is to be a fourth party in the infobox, it needs to be the green party. Excluding those seven councils which are to be re-warded, the party standings are (when considering only the seats up for grabs): LAB 1642, CON 1420, LD 651, IND 105, GRN 18, UKIP 15, OTH 44. None of the seven councils which are re-warding have UKIP/Green councillors up for election in 2014, so the comment above stands about the Greens being the fourth party.

After UKIP's success at the 2013 local elections (third in vote share, fourth in seats won but well ahead of the Greens in 5th), they were added as the 4th party in the infobox to this article. That edit stood for some time, but User:Richard BB recently reverted it. I restored it, and now an IP editor has re-reverted it. We also have the above comment. So, I've come to the Talk page to seek consensus one way or the other.
As far as I can make out, the issue comes down to which elections we should be comparing against. If we base the comparison with the 2013 results, then UKIP should be included in the infobox. However, the local elections in each year are in somewhat different areas, so these particular seats were last up in 2010, when UKIP were behind the Greens, BNP and Liberal Party, and way behind the big 3 parties. (Not that I think the Greens very limited success in 2010 warrants their inclusion in the infobox either.)
When in doubt, we should look at what reliable sources do... and they do both. In terms of seat/council changes, results are generally compared with the last cycle (which would be 2010), but projected national vote share is generally compared on a year-on-year basis (which would be 2013). Psephologists recognise that results in each cycle both reflect the particular seats up for election and general year-on-year voting trends.
Thus, I see no reason to include the Greens in the infobox, but based on their 2013 success and notwithstanding their 2010 performance, I feel there is sufficient reason to include UKIP as the 4th party in the infobox. Bondegezou (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd just like to point out that I removed it because it was added by an IP without consensus. I'm not strictly against it being here, I'd just prefer that consensus be achieved before any decisions are made (especially as we both know that UKIP is a contentious issue). — Richard BB 15:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
We've not really progressed on this. One IP editor opposes adding UKIP, but another previously favoured doing so. I think they should be in (as above). Richard BB is neutral (yes?). Can we resolve this better? Does anyone else feel that UKIP should or should not be included in the infobox for this article? Bondegezou (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Include - To be consistent with my response to the next uk general election I think they can currently be considered a force in local elections as they were so successful during the last ones. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't include -- I'm the IP editor (finally found a username!). I removed UKIP as they are not currently the fourth party in the set of council seats up for election in 2014 (which were previously elected in 2010). In preparation for the 2014 election I have been collating the 2010 local election results, and any intermediate defections and by-elections, to determine the number of seats which each party will be defending. As mentioned in my IP comment above, the Greens are currently the fourth party in the seats up for election in 2014, not UKIP. While they may have performed better in the locals this year, I thought wikipedia was not a crystal ball (I think there is some WP for that?). An alternative would be to include the Greens, UKIP and Other (including IND and the various Resident's Associations) in the infobox, giving us two rows of three parties. That way every party is represented in someway or another in the box. RobDR (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
As I say above, if you look only at the 2010 results, clearly the infobox should only be the three main parties: no UKIP (or Greens). However, it makes little sense to me to decide the 2014 infobox only on the 2010 results with no reference to the 2013 results or other evidence. Bondegezou (talk) 16:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Include when candidate figures been released - 2010 results can not be the only measure for inclusion as incumbency is only one of many factors. Current national polling, combined with the last set of local elections gives a strong indication that UKIP will be a major contender in these elections. That said UKIP have not got a record of putting up large numbers of candidates in these seats, therefore for them to actually be considered contenders they would need to field similar numbers of candidates to at least the Liberal Democrats: if you don't put up a serious number of candidates then you are not a serious contender, UKIP have yet to prove they can field a high enough number of candidates, we should know by February.

However, we also need to consider that these elections will be held on the same day as the European Parliament elections, 2014, something UKIP is widely tipped to win. This will mean that UKIP will receive a significant amount of media attention during the build up to the elections and that will likely impact upon their vote share. Owl In The House (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Voters who are registered at more than one address[edit]

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

Those who are registered to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) are entitled to vote in the local elections at each address, as long as they are not in the same local government area.[1]

User:Moonraker12 changed this to:

It is possible to register to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) at the discretion of the local Electoral Register Office, and vote at each address in local government elections, but it remains an offence to vote more than once in elections to one local government area.[2][3][4]

User:Moonraker12 gave this reason on my user talkpage for the change: 'I don’t know where you got it from (it’s a very selective interpretation of what the source actually says) and I would suggest you double-check it with your local ERO. In the meantime I’ve altered it here, and here, because the text as it stood was advising readers to commit a criminal act, which puts WP (ie us) in an awkward legal position.'

I have reverted User:Moonraker12's edit for the following reasons:

Nothing I originally wrote constitutes a 'selective interpretation of what the source actually says'. The Electoral Commission webpage which I cited ( is very clear that "If an elector is registered to vote in two different electoral areas, they are eligible to vote in local elections for the two different local councils. However, it is an offence to vote twice in any one election. Such an offence could result in a fine of up to £5,000." This means, for example, that a university student whose home is in Southampton and who studies in Newcastle can be on the electoral register in both cities and can vote in the local elections in both cities. It would, however, be an offence for the university student to vote twice in the same election (for example, in both Southampton and Newcastle in a UK general election, or a European Parliamentary election). It would not be an offence for the student to vote in both Southampton and Newcastle local elections. Another source which confirms this view is the Electoral Commission's About My Vote webpage for students ( which clearly states:

Can I vote twice, at home and at uni?
You can’t vote twice in: a UK Parliamentary, Scottish Parliamentary, National Assembly for Wales or European Parliamentary election.
But you can vote in local government elections at home and at your term-time address, as long as they are not in the same local government area.

In addition, User:Moonraker12 is wrong to write that 'It is possible to register to vote at more than one address (such as a university student who has a term-time address and lives at home during holidays) at the discretion of the local Electoral Register Office'. Registration at both addresses is an entitlement - the ERO at both councils is obliged to follow the Electoral Commission's guidance in relation to registering university students who have two addresses.

Bonus bon (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ "I have two homes. Can I register at both addresses?". The Electoral Commission. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
  2. ^ "I have two homes. Can I register at both addresses?". The Electoral Commission. Retrieved 5 January 2011.
  3. ^ Can I be registered to vote at two different addresses? "Registering to vote". The Electoral Commission. Retrieved 30 April 2013.
  4. ^ "Students". The Electoral Commission. Retrieved 30 April 2013.

Edit warring by User:Bardrick[edit]

User:Bardrick, I have started this discussion so that we can resolve the place of UKIP appearing on the infobox. As you can see from the discussion above, there is no consensus to have them added, which you claim there is. Please bring the discussion here rather than edit warring so that we can bring an end to this. — Richard BB 06:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

User now blocked. Hopefully that's the end of it. — Richard BB 20:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

UKIP again[edit]

In the hopes that, post-block, we can avoid further edit warring and discuss the matter here, can I ask everyone: where do people stand now? Should UKIP be in the infobox? I discuss above why I think they should be included. Richard BB is neutral on the matter. The 24-hour-blocked Bardrick clearly feels they should be included too. Others have previously opposed this edit (and I don't think we should make this edit unless/until consensus is demonstrated here). Would anyone else like to chime in? Bondegezou (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Include - As I said above, when it comes to local elections I think they have achieved a threshold whereby they warrant being in the infobox. If they fail massively in 2014 then their inclusion can be re-evaluated. They are rightly included in the equivalent infobox for next years euro elections but they were only included there because they can reasonably be expected to be notable. I think they have passed that threshold in the locals by getting 23% in 2013. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
You're argument about including UKIP because they are in the EU election page is somewhat contradictory. They are in that infobox because they came second in the previous election, which is not the case for UKIP in the 2010 local elections. If we were to follow that logic, the Greens would take the additional spot on the infobox. RobDR (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Neutral, as Bondegzou said. I thank him/her for starting this section so that we might achieve an actual, definite consensus. I think there are good points to be made on either side of the argument, so I'm willing to sit back and see what everyone else thinks. — Richard BB 07:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The box should be added ex post facto. It serves absolutely no use at the moment given it is totally empty. A more sensible course of action would be to add a table of results showing the number of councillors/councils each party got in the 2010 elections. This way every party can be listed, and it provides context for the 2014 election. I can volunteer to get that table set up as a new section prior to the big table of councils. The info box should simply be removed at present, and can be added when figures are available. RobDR (talk) 08:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I agree pretty much entirely with RobDR's position here. Currently the infobox looks a bit silly to me. Atshal (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Most election articles manage an infobox before the result, so I feel we should too. As I said previously, if you base the decision on a comparison with 2010 then, no, UKIP shouldn't be included. They did worse than the Greens and others (and the Greens were not remotely near the LibDems, so I think it would be silly to include them). However, it seems to me wrong to base the decision purely on the last time these elections were held. Other election article infoboxes have not taken that approach. I think it's valuable here to consider what a reliable source would do. The BBC publish their editorial guidelines for party coverage, and while they have not yet put any up for these elections, they give general guidance: see here. These say:

The relative amount of coverage given to political parties in each election should reflect levels of past and/or current electoral support. In considering this, the following factors should be given due weight by editors and content producers:

performance at the last equivalent election [...] in terms of representation and/or share of the vote.

performance in subsequent elections, where relevant

other relevant evidence of current electoral support

the number of candidates a party fields in the election

While UKIP did poorly in 2010, they did well in 2013 and are doing well in the polls. These must have some relevance to the question. I struggle with an argument that ignores everything that has happened since 2010. Bondegezou (talk) 19:54, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment. Well there doesn't appear to be any water in that bath to start with, to continue that analogy! Currently the only relevant piece of information within the infobox is the ordering of the parties at the 2010 election (Con, Lab, LD).RobDR (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Include when candidate figures been released - 2010 results can not be the only measure for inclusion as incumbency is only one of many factors. Current national polling, combined with the last set of local elections gives a strong indication that UKIP will be a major contender in these elections. That said UKIP have not got a record of putting up large numbers of candidates in these seats, therefore for them to actually be considered contenders they would need to field similar numbers of candidates to at least the Liberal Democrats: if you don't put up a serious number of candidates then you are not a serious contender, UKIP have yet to prove they can field a high enough number of candidates, we should know by February.

However, we also need to consider that these elections will be held on the same day as the European Parliament elections, 2014, something UKIP is widely tipped to win. This will mean that UKIP will receive a significant amount of media attention during the build up to the elections and that will likely impact upon their vote share. For now the priority should be to expand the article by adding the details of the councils up for election. When we get confirmation that UKIP are fielding a significantly high number of candidates, it is then that we should add UKIP to the info box. Owl In The House (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Priorities, people.[edit]

Can we please STOP this edit warring about UKIP? Look at the article, and tell me what is really missing - nobody is even approaching the articles for each council, there's still a red link for the London local elections article, and I suspect this will be the case upto March or April next year if we carry on pressing Revert/Edit/Revert/Edit on some demented rota system.

There are FAR more pressing priorities in 2014. We're going to be up against the European Parliamentary Elections in terms of regular editors' attentions, so those of us who want to get something done for the local elections MUST focus on more pressing matters than Nigel Farage's face. PLEASE can we just stop edit warring, and start editing. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just finished a busy patch at work, so I'll try and find sometime to expand not only this page, but also the individual council election pages. RobDR (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. While, I am in agreement with adding UKIP to the info box, I realize thatthey have yet to prove that they can field enough candidates, so in my view this issue should go on hold until after the new year, we will likely know by February/March. In the mean time, YES, lets get on and sort this article out.Owl In The House (talk) 15:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

BBC draft guidance[edit]

The BBC have published their draft guidance for coverage of these local elections and the Euro-elections in the same day: [2]. In short, they describe Labour, Conservative and LibDem as the major parties in the election, with UKIP and Greens as the main minor parties. As I've said before, I think our coverage, e.g. who goes in the infobox, should be guided by what reliable sources do, and the BBC guidance is a key example of that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a few skims through and I can't see how you've come to that conclusion, indeed I've looked specifically for a phrase similar to "with UKIP and Greens as the main minor parties". Personally, I have my hesitations about adding UKIP to this info box (and its not a position that I am advocating) but if anything this document from the BBC would support such an idea. Owl In The House (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Appendix C, p. 32:
"The three largest parties in relation to the English local elections are Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems. In any coverage relating primarily to the council elections, these three parties will receive similar coverage.
"There is some variation in support for other parties and independents in parts of England and regional and local output should take account of differing levels of past and current electoral strength in their areas.
"Across England, the Green Party has some support in those parts of local government up for election and should receive some coverage proportionate to the larger parties. At last year’s local elections, UKIP won substantial electoral support and representation and should also, therefore, receive a similarly proportionate level of coverage.
"Other parties which are standing candidates in at least one sixth of the seats available (either in England as a whole for network programmes or in particular areas for local and regional output), will receive some proportionate coverage.
"Appropriate network news and current affairs programmes will cover, as a minimum, the manifesto launch (or equivalent event relating to the council elections) of all parties which are standing candidates in at least one sixth of the seats being contested."
In other words, the the main parties are Lab, Con & LDem and the main minor parties (my wording) are Green and UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

UKIP in the infobox, as 3rd or 4th party?[edit]

Another edit war has started over whether UKIP should be included in the infobox for this article (in 3rd or 4th position), so I thought it would be useful to re-start the discussion here to encourage a more peaceable resolution to the issue.

I think we should reach consensus here before making any changes. I am happy to see any bold edits changing the parties in the infobox get reverted until we have reached consensus. However, I also remain sympathetic to the view that UKIP warrant inclusion in the infobox (see comments in various sections above).

Do others feel the same as previously or does anyone have any new thoughts on the matter? Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

UKIP only got 3% of the vote in the 2010 General Election but since then they have done well in local and European elections. The local election results would be the equivalent of 17% if repeated in a General Election and they came third. They may not have many Councillors compared to the other parties but that's because we have First-past-the-post elections for local elections. They are a major party in terms of real votes. (Coachtripfan (talk) 14:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC))

UKIP Inclusion[edit]

It is axiomatic that the few people controlling this page are Liberal Democrat lovers, or at the very least UKIP haters. That is all well and good, and I personally do not mind. However, for the sake of impartiality, this must stop and you must reflect current trends over the last few years; not just since the last general election! Remember many council elections are ran every year for three years, followed by a gap year thereafter.

Below are the recent voting trends from 10 council by-elections on 12th and 13th March 2014.

Council Date Conservative Labour Lib Dems UKIP Other
Hampshire CC, Petersfield Butser March 12, 2014 1156 322 685 720 220
East Hants DC, Petersfield Bell Hill March 12, 2014 190 75 74 110 220
Canterbury City Council, Barham Downs March 13, 2014 285 78 337 164 40
Amber Valley BC, Heanor West March 13, 2014 229 595 41 259 0
Cheshire East UA, Crewe West March 13, 2014 122 720 55 386 159
Luton BC, Farley March 13, 2014 154 1232 46 226 41
Runnymede BC, Chertsey Meads March 13, 2014 489 329 0 327 15
South Kesteven DC, Aveland March 13, 2014 359 116 0 0 0
Knowsley MB, Longview March 13, 2014 37 670 0 0 327
Shropshire UA, Ludlow North March 13, 2014 382 94 579 0 223
Appleton Parish Council, Cobbs Ward March 13, 2014 87 138 436 0 0
TOTAL VOTES 3490 4369 2253 2192 1025
PERCENTAGE 26.2% 32.8% 16.9% 16.4% 7.7%

Admittedly, the table above puts UKIP in fourth place; but only just! The reason I have insisted on editing this page to put UKIP as third is due to the many political polls that put them in clear third place.

I will accept UKIP being put on this page as the fourth party - but that is where the negotiation should stop. Any inference that the Green Party or any other party should be mentioned, may I just confirm that out of the by-elections above, the Green Party stood only three times! The 'other' represents mainly independent and fringe parties.

Therefore, for the sake of impartiality and retaining authenticity. Please leave UKIP on this page - third or fourth I do not mind. Consistently removing my edit and referring to it as vandalism, is simply denying the truth from Wikipedia users.

Thank you - Terence Uttley

Thanks, Terence, for engaging on the Talk page. I've moved your comments from the top of the Talk page to the bottom as Talk pages usually proceed chronologically.
I strongly suggest that when making comments here or in edit summaries, you maintain respect for your fellow Wikipedians. This is summarised in the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. Accusing people of partisan bias is not helpful. Bondegezou (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your help, Bondegezou - With the exception of you, it is quite clear that users do not want UKIP to share a platform. I hope that UKIP are allowed an inclusion on this page as per my edit (as third or fourth party) so that I may be proven wrong. I won't hold my breath. Regards, Terence Uttley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terenceuttley (talkcontribs) 13:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that people are quick to undo, but not as quick to engage in a discussion. Can anybody also clarify at what point would a consensus be reached? Terenceuttley (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The statistics show that UKIP is not the third party of local government. They may not be for some time. By the same token, they may be very soon. To speculate is to break WP:CRYSTALBALL. Further point; at a local level, UKIP have yet to prove that they are a national party (no councillors in the NW, or in Scotland), or a firmly established regional one (strong in Kent, hardly known anywhere else in the SE). It may well be that we need to add the Greens before UKIP; that's not political bias, that's just facts. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Terence, there has been considerable discussion on this question higher up this very Talk page. Various points have been made. These include: reliable sources are not treating UKIP in the same way as the big three parties (see BBC guidance above); polls of general election voting intention may not be relevant to local elections; UKIP have done well in recent local by-elections and at last year's local elections, but they were nowhere the last time these particular elections were held. It is difficult to weigh up these different points: we have reasons for and against UKIP's inclusion in the infobox. That is not a partisan bias against UKIP: rather, I see a reasoned debate between many editors noting various lines of argument for and against the change.
As always, we resolve issues by following policies. First and foremost, we follow the assumption of good faith in our fellow editors. Without that, nothing is going to happen. Bondegezou (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree with Terrences' bad faith, but they're right about this greens nonsense. There is considerable "debate" about whether UKIP are the 3rd/4th party in the UK but to suggest they come below the greens is outright delusion, at best. The Greens poll at 1-3%, generally competing for 5th place, but sometimes 8th. UKIP 9-19%, generally 3rd, sometimes 4th. Last year the greens got 3.5%, UKIP 19.9%. I remember exactly the same arguments last year, they were bollocks then and they're bollocks now. (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
This further compounds the case for adding UKIP to the infobox. However it depends on one uncertainty; whether UKIP can scrape together enough candidates to be a significant player in these elections. In my view all the evidence suggestsUKIP should be included, provided they have enough candidates. Owl In The House (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Infobox: either wait until results come in or have 4 party box from last year, excluding UKIP cannot be justified.[edit]

Title says it all, you cannot have your cake & eat it too, UKIP will be in infobox after election so they must be in infobox prior if it exists. Either no infobox yet or 4 party infobox. Pick one. (talk) 10:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus and a set of policies. Chief among these policies is the use of reliable sources. The BBC, a key reliable source, say UKIP are not one of the main parties at this election (see prior discussion). If you can present some arguments for your position, that would be useful and allow a considered debate. Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You know full well there is no consensus to have an infobox excluding UKIP. Main party and 'in the infobox' are not and have never been synonymous. Here is the BBCs 'infobox' I know it's last years, you know this years will be much the same. Unless anyone intends to throw away their credibility by claiming that UKIP won't end up in the infobox for this election, I can't see the argument. This exact same discussion happened last year: either we wait & see or we put the parties in isn't crystal ball, it's the exact same infobox as last year. I repeat:Either we put the infobox up beforehand (in which case there is no basis for excluding UKIP), or wait until afterwards (in which case there is no basis for excluding UKIP).
The only possible argument for a 'no ukip' infobox is if it's a 'Seats before the election' infobox, which isn't the case for any uk local election articles I've seen.
We already had this discussion last year, you were there: UKIP end up in the infobox. (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles for forthcoming elections usually have infoboxes. I see no reason to do without one. I am sympathetic to including UKIP now, as I've said before. However, I also acknowledge there are arguments against as well and we should only act with consensus. (Obviously, once the results are in, that will be the determining factor.)
You think UKIP should be in now. I am ambivalent - I'm not opposing the idea. But let's see what others say. Bondegezou (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral on the UKIP infobox issue, but what I'm not neutral on is that it's quite clear this debate has been done to death already, and there's no consensus for including UKIP. End of. Instead of debating this issue for the hundredth time, let's concentrate on improving the article overall in time for the elections. Redverton (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to include UKIP. These elections are for entirely different seats that the 2013 local elections. Reliable sources going into this election have stated that UKIP is not a major party for these elections. LordFixit (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Again, I hold a similar position to Bondegezou but I would say that if UKIP were to put forward just as many (or almost as many of candidates as one of the 3main parties, I would say that is grounds enough to include them. Those who want to use incumbancy as the only measure are simply wrong. Let's look at the bigger picture, polling, media coverage (the party will be treated as a main party by the media througout this election campaign) and also the number of candidates. The number of candidates is the only thing we are unsure of at the moment, when that comes clear, that is when we should make our decision, I suspect by the end of April. For now, lets keep the info box as is. Owl In The House (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that the number of candidates is that significant (remember the Natural Law Party?), but I do very much agree that incumbency/results last time should not be the sole determinant. Wikipedia practice over many elections has not been merely to base infobox inclusion on the previous results, e.g. most recent Italian general election. We do have to look beyond last time's results to other indicators. What I have long said should be the main determinant is what should so often be the main determinant on Wikipedia: reflecting what reliable sources say. If RS treat UKIP as a major player in these elections, so should we. The only clear RS I've seen so far on these elections so far is the BBC's guidance, and that puts only Lab, Con and LD as the main parties. But we should see more as the elections get closer. Bondegezou (talk) 06:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's the Ofcom guidance: it says the major parties at the election are Con, Lab and LibDem, plus SNP in Scotland and PC in Wales, plus UKIP but only in terms of the European elections. So that looks to me like a pretty big reliable source guide that UKIP are not considered a major party for these local elections. Bondegezou (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It is quite clear that several contributors will not allow UKIP a place in the infobox, and what is more disappointing are those same individuals using sources like BBC and Ofcom and proclaiming reliability; nothing like endorsing the status quo! Instead of using so called reliable sources, one only needs to look at all the current trends of local council elections - which I have already provided in a table. Obviously the only things that count are 'commentary sources' not actual 'facts' based on trends of what is 'actually happening'.

@Bondegezou - Ofcom are purely basing the fact that UKIP are not a major party with the view that as of 2010, UKIP have no elected MPs. The reason Ofcom by the same token demonstrate that UKIP are a major party in the European elections, is because UKIP do have MEPs elected. Therefore, using Ofcom as a reliable source is simply dreadful in the argument for the 2014 local elections, and consequently denying UKIP any inclusion in this article.

Furthermore, your diplomacy of 'not being opposed to the idea of UKIP inclusion' providing that there is 'consensus' is a deliberately evasive tactic, knowing full well that several other editors of this article will continuously revert any insertions of UKIP, and deny consensus has ever occurred.

It's all well and good too, defending yourself with the Wikipedia "assume good faith policy", but unfortunately it is a convenient protection of those whom wish to abuse, censor and manipulate free information to the public. Shameful!Terenceuttley (talk) 10:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Terenceuttley, if you want to write a newspaper article or a blog post predicting how well UKIP will do in the local elections based on "the current trends of local council elections", go for it. You might well be right. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a politicial discussion forum, not a source of revolutionary tracts. As an encyclopaedia, it is based on what reliable, independent, 3rd party sources say; so, yes, it reflects the status quo.
This is the Internet: there are a hundred ways you can get "free information to the public". No-one's stopping you from preaching your message. I like the PoliticalBetting blog, for example. Plenty would be interested to debate your thoughts there. Or good ol' uk.politics.electoral. But Wikipedia is a community that has chosen to work in a particular way to a particular end. You can respect that and work within that framework, or you can take your time and effort elsewhere -- your choice -- but if you want Wikipedia to be something other than it currently is, you're not going to win that discussion here. Go to WP:CCPOL and discuss there if you want to try.
By the way, you talk of the current approach "denying UKIP any inclusion in this article." That's a bit silly of you. We're discussing whether UKIP should be included in the infobox, that's all. Obviously UKIP should be included in the main article text, and clearly once the results are in, UKIP's performance will be described along side every other party's. Bondegezou (talk) 11:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Support - I am now getting off the fence on this issue. 2 things have changed my mind.
1. There are now firm numbers as to how many councillors UKIP will be standing and they will indeed be standing in more then half the seats up for grabs.
2. Terenceuttley is right when he highlights recent trends in council by-elections etc. I realise that Terrance has only provided limited data etc but Wikipedia has a policy of no original research, so we can hardly expect him to. That said there are reliable sources out there showing that UKIP have become a significant force at local level. Here is a list of council byelection results from across England: If you take a look through there is no denying that UKIP have become a significant force at local level. Yes, its true to say that they aren't winning vast swathes of seats at by-elections but they are picking up seats in areas that are up for election and if you look at each result they are polling strong percentages wherever they stand, frequently racking up higher percentages than the other main parties. If you look through the results it just shows how ridiculous this argument is that somehow the Greens are more locally significant or that they are remotely within sniffing distance of election box status: Firstly they rarely put up candidates and secondly when they do, they almost always come last. In terms of results UKIP are now in the same league as the Lib Dems, not the Greens.
I now favour adding UKIP to the info box, not just on the strength of the two points I've highlighted that have swung me over but also because of the strong trend in national polling showing that this isn't some sort of flash in the pan lasting a few months, there has been slow and steady growth over several years and their support seems relentlessly "sticky" (not budging). If we also consider the 2013 elections as well and the results of that and then consider that these elections are being held on the same day as the EU elections,it really does seem silly not to include them. People will say, "oh but in 2009 they did well in EU elections but very poorly at locals", yes but the evidence strongly suggests that UKIP do have a strong foot hold at local level and indeed if anything having the European Elections on the same day will escalate their local elections vote (unlike in 2009).
I think we've reached a point where we need to finally put this argument to bed. I have said all along that I was not in support of but sympathetic to the idea of adding UKIP to the info box if that's what the evidence reflected. I am now of the view that all of the evidence does suggest that UKIP is a major player in these elections and should be added. The only box that hasn't been ticked is incumbancy (past performance in those specific seats, last time these elections were held), we have said all along that this isn't the sole deciding factor for who goes in the infobox and yet it seems to be the only justification for not including UKIP. It is clear that further progress isn't going to be made with this article until this issue is resolved. Let's resolve it and make the edit. Owl In The House (talk) 09:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

This is excellent news, thank you Owl In The House. Should Bondegezou also be in favour, there should be deemed adequate support for consensus to include UKIP in the infobox (to be included as the fourth party?) Terenceuttley (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a number of things...
(a) UKIP is now a mainstream party who will do well enough at these elections to warrant inclusion in the infobox.
(b) ... but Wikipedia edits are not based on editors' personal views, but on reliable source citations.
(c) ... but how we interpret that in the context of who to include in an infobox is difficult.
(d) That said, we have some reliable source citations (BBC, Ofcom) saying that UKIP are not considered by them to be a major player at these elections.
(e) The number of councillors being stood is interesting (and noteworthy in the article text), but I don't see that it adds very much to the infobox question; ditto local by-election results -- that all looks dangerously close to WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.
(f) What we need to settle this is, in my mind, examples of reliable source articles discussing the local elections and giving UKIP comparable prominence to the three big parties.
(g) Based on all that, my current position is that I do not object to UKIP's inclusion in the infobox if others support that.
(h) Most importantly, me saying that, and Owl and Terenceuttley being in favour does not make a WP:consensus for including UKIP given that numerous other editors have repeatedly objected in the past. Bondegezou (talk) 12:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I take your point Bondegezou but (BBC, Ofcom and the Electoral Commission) work solely on the basis of performance at the previous election, indeed they say as much in the source you provided. This is why they have given equal status to UKIP for the Euro elections but not for the local council elections. That said you are right to say that Wikipedia takes its lead from reliable sources but is not bound by the decisions of its third party sources. That said the BBC and OfCom sources aren't the only ones we have to work with, we do have the byelection results (and plenty of them) and we also have how the media are covering these elections. There will always be editors who will object to UKIP's addition (no doubt even after the results - there is even someone disputing the order of the parties in the info box of the Euro elections). May I remind people that Wikipedia is not a democracy, we do not need majorities or unanimity, we need consensus around a sound and reasoned argument. Right now, the only arguments that exist for not including UKIP are all based on incumbancy (who won what in 2010) and that is the simple fact of the matter and I am of the view that that is wrong. The fact that the local and European elections have become synonymous within the media rides a horse and cart through the whole OfCom and BBC decisions anyway.

Furthermore we do have reliable sources talking about UKIP as a threat to the main parties in local councils. Also coverage and narratives of such articles intertwine the two elections taking place. I provide an example of a national paper and a local paper's articles (I see no reason to do this for every single local and national paper): and Owl In The House (talk) 15:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

The BBC's and Ofcom's decisions are not merely based on previous results. They base decisions on previous results and other factors, including polling and other election results (e.g. by-elections). (See here for example, where Ofcom discuss polling, including UKIP's, in multiple places.) This rather undermines your argument.
I looked at the Telegraph article. It does not portray UKIP as a major player in the local elections (only in the European elections). I looked at the Inside Croydon article. It is more relevant. It discusses the possibility of UKIP gaining local seats, albeit in Croydon only. However, I don't think it can be said that the article portrays UKIP as a major player in the local elections, comparable to Labour or Conservative.
Articles about UKIP in the local elections are not, to my mind, enough. To be persuasive, it seems to me you need articles discussing the local elections (nationally, not just in one region) that explicitly put UKIP up there with the big three parties. These may well appear in the coming days, but I haven't seen such yet. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
I did actually read the OfCom decision and lets face it, the decision is mostly based on the previous results. Polling gets mentioned but they point out that such polling is for the general election mostly. It seems to me that OfCom and the BBC are covering their backs here in highlighting things that suggest UKIP could do well in the local elections but that they don't want to be seen to be preempting that possibility/likelihood. OfCom know full well that in terms of media coverage these two elections will be synonymous anyway, so granting major party status for the EU elections is in practice giving it for both elections, without the controversy of doing it in name. As for the BBC, well they actually are a news outlet and they're coverage of the two elections is largely synonymous and yes they are covering UKIP a lot more as a result. This written ruling by OfCom is all well and good but it isn't exactly representative of reality, nor is it being followed perfectly in practice because it is impossible to do so and they know it. This is a very technical point and detracts from the bigger picture, we are literally talking about the strength of a piece of paper which in practice does not bind the media, nor should it wikipedia. That said, I am happy to wait a few more days for sources etc but really I think we need to have this settled by this time next week at the very latest. Owl In The House (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
The matter is currently settled: there is no consensus to add UKIP, so UKIP are not added. Should consensus change, then an edit can be made. I don't see any need to impose timetables (like "by this time next week at the very latest"). Wikipedia is not a news provider: it is an encyclopaedia. It can move more slowly than news. There is no urgency (outside of WP:BLP matters).
Your analysis of the BBC's and Ofcom's decisions may well be right, but that's original research. It is not up to us to second guess reliable sources. (If you can find a reliable source making that critique of the BBC and Ofcom, I'm all ears.)
My argument is that a central policy of Wikipedia is that we follow what reliable sources do. Debating with reliable sources, basing an argument on separate primary data collection &c., that's not the Wikipedia way. Bondegezou (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Here's a source from PLMR explicitly linking the local and European elections in such a way that they are spoken about as one and the same thing. Notice it hears from 4 parties, not 3, not 5 or any other number. PLMR source I'm sure there will be many more to follow. Owl In The House (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Notice how frequently this BBC source titled Local council elections: Cameron hails 'British revival' mentions UKIP. This is clear evidence of the BBC giving prominence to UKIP for the local elections and indeed making their coverage of the local and european elections synonymous as per my earlier point. Owl In The House (talk) 19:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Lets also not forget about polling, there is a London only local elections poll out, I know its only one poll but it helps to cement the case:
Polling organisation/client Sample size Lab Con Lib Dem UKIP <span style="color:White;">Others]] Lead
28-29 April Survation 1,001 42% 26% 14% 11% 7% 16% over Con

Owl In The House (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, look the BBC are covering this local election on the TV as a 4 party race as are Sky News. I'm taking the bold move of adding UKIP to the info box as I have also provided other sources as requested. Owl In The House (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)


There is a severe lack of even the most rudimentary articles for each authority's results this year. Why? doktorb wordsdeeds 13:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't question it would be good to have some more articles up, but I'm confused by your tone. You seem to be assuming Wikipedia is something it isn't - it's an encyclopaedia maintained by volunteers, not some company that's required to produce these articles by a set time. So you ask why? Simple, no-one's yet bothered, and you can't force people to do them. I suggest you help out by creating some of these articles yourself. Redverton (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I think it is partly because of the above discussion on the infobox. If editors were less dismissive, I suspect other editors would be less inslined to confrontation and may indeed decide to be more proactive in improving articles. May I suggest that you create the pages with one line saying something like "This election will take place on 22nd May 2014" and others may decide to fill in the information. That at least seems a positive way forward as opposed to being dismissive and alienating other potential editors. Owl In The House (talk) 11:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
All articles for authority's results (even the Irish ones) have now been created. I see a couple of these have already been expanded to include the full results. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
User:Lugnuts, I've been a great twunt towards you in the past, but thanks for this update. I've no laptop these days so updating pages as often as I once did.. doktorb wordsdeeds 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Looking at the related changes, lots of the updates seem to come from red-linked userpage people (IE new editors), who are keen to add info, but only once the basic skeleton is there to edit. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

This article is only about the local elections in England. There are no local elections this year in Scotland or Wales, and those in Northern Ireland are covered on a different page. I suggest moving this page to England local elections, 2014. This page could then be akin to a disambiguation page, linking to the Northern Ireland and England elections. --Wavehunter (talk) 14:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

There are local elections each year, but there are different local elections in each cycle. I think it is neater if we have a core article for each called "United Kingdom local elections, year", so I oppose a name change. Having some articles called "England local elections, year" and some "United Kingdom local elections, year" would serve little benefit, it seems to me. (Northern Ireland complicates matters, having a distinct political system, and the Northern Irish elections this year are of a particularly special nature.) Bondegezou (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I can see the point you are trying to make but I'm in agreement with Bondegezou on this one for technical reasons. It will make a mess of linking the different articles together and is just more trouble then it's worth. Owl In The House (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Pedantic but wholly disruptive. Within the United Kingdom, there are elections (including 70-odd under/never reported local authority byelections). It would be a great mess to divert a page on a technicality doktorb

wordsdeeds 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bondegezou, I agree that Northern Ireland complicates things, but that is in the nature of our constitution at its current state of evolution. Owl In The House, it would be very easy to make the change, but I won't make it without consensus. doktorb, I don't think you'll find many in Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh agreeing with your assertion that the difference between England and the United Kingdom is 'pedantic' or 'a technicality'. --Wavehunter (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand the point being made about these being some of many "United Kingdom local elections", and maintaining the naming convention for easiness, but I do feel the title is misleading. We don't have the 2016 Scottish Parliament election as "2016 United Kingdom General Election" on the grounds that it is a general election in the UK just with different seats being contested from the "2015 United Kingdom General Election". The title is not being used (as far as I can tell) by any major broadcasters (who are referring to these as English local elections), so I feel keeping this title for the reasons stated is itself a "pedantic technicality". - R160K (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Details Pages[edit]

Anyone else think we should set up a wiki project with the sole aim of filling in the missing details pages for this election and past elections. I'm willing to work on it (I enjoy looking at election results) but no one person is going to be able to accomplish this task on their own. On a slightly unrelated note is their a way to turn word tables into wiki tables (it would save a lot of time) Snookerloopypolitico (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Northern Ireland and the infobox[edit]

Shouldn't the Northern Ireland results be in some way included in the article's main infobox? For example, UKIP have won seats in NI, which should be added to their overall tally. Argovian (talk) 19:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I was planning to let Northern Ireland's full voting process exhaust itself before editing the results to reflect that, but yes, I agree that the seats UKIP win in Northern Ireland should be reflected in the infobox given the title of the article is United Kingdom Local Election 2014.

Personally, the way I'd go about it is to add the total of UKIP councillors in Northern Ireland to the overall total of UKIP councillors in the United Kingdom in the infobox & add a * next to the number with an explanation in the paragraph I recently added that UKIP won xxx amount of council seats, xxx in England and x in Northern Ireland.

For example:

Infobox -

Councillors 159*

Paragraph addition: UKIP 159*, 157 in England (Up 155) & 2 in Northern Ireland (Up 2).

Something like that should work okay? DomT4 (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I will add UKIP's Northern Irish seats to the infobox. Argovian (talk) 13:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


I've removed swing from infobox, it really isn't a concept that can be applied to comparisons between 2013s & 2014s completely different local elections, and shouldn't IMO be applied to 'projections' or extrapolations anyway....and swing in the UK is almost exclusively given as two party swing, and it doesn't make much sense to apply it to a whole bunch of local elections where parties were/weren't standing in different numbers in different places. IMO any attempt to give % change should use the same elections (2010 in this case)....but even then I don't think it's going to have much value considering the problems. (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. There's precedence for it being used this way on Wikipedia, in the Local Elections 2012 Wiki page, as well as the Local Elections 2010 and 2011.

The BBC have also been discussing a projected swing all day on the news, and you can find reference to swing in multiple news articles used this way, including this piece in the Independent.

Wikipedia's own article on Swing also details how it can be used in this manner.

I don't see how there isn't just cause to have it present in the infobox here. DomT4 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC).

Yes, based on sources I concede the point. Or rather, I'm absolutely certain I'm correct....but wiki verifiability vs truth thing means we go with news medias nonsense. (talk) 22:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The only sane use of it would be in direct comparison with 2010 excluding any seats where boundaries have changed or a different set of seats is up for election. However as 2010 was an election year and as such pushed local election turnout up there's issues with even that. So it's easier just to leave it out Snookerloopypolitico (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly, for better or worse, the national media have started using swing in this manner and it has caught on. Consequently, as an information source I think Wiki has a place reflecting that usage by the national media, given that if someone goes hunting for the results of the UK Local elections for this year one of the first results that comes up in Google/etc is Wiki's page for it. I don't disagree that the media's usage of it is more statistics-porn than an actually useful comparative measure, but still, I think there's a need for us to reflect that information being pushed out there for now. DomT4 (talk) 23:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC).

The "Swing" Figures are suitable. In local elections, The BBC takes the results, and extrapolates them out so as to see what percentage the parties get if the elections had happened across the UK. For this reason the "percentage vote" for 2014 is directly comparable with that of 2013, 2012 or 2011 despite the fact that different councils had seats up over the different local election years. Thats why a swing between these local elections and last years local elections is perfectly acceptable, despite the fact different seats were upGuyb123321 (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with, swing in the context of local elections is inappropriate; the seats in contention are entirely different as compared with last year and in spite of widespread use by the media, claims such as that UKIP is 5% down on 2013 are misleading given that all of London was contested this year where UKIP has been known to under-perform. Ultimately, the data from this and last year is incomparable, and therefore it shouldn't be included in the infobox. Hayek79 (talk) 11:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Technically it is not Swing in the manner that the UK broadcasters/politicians generally refer to. The numbers that are quoted currently are a pure change in percentage from the previous set of numbers. Swing in the UK refers to an averaged percentage change between two parties (see the Swing (politics) page for more detail). It is misleading in my opinion. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 11:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, should it actually matter whether the BBC have referred to it? I believe the data the BBC used was a projected figure that assumed that every ward in the country was voting and the values were calculated thus. But certainly the claim that UKIP is down 5% on last year, and the Conservatives up 4%, is not actually correct. Hayek79 (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a question, how do you know that that is not correct, while the UKIP vote may be dramatically up since 2010 (When these seats were last contested), its still entirely possible its down slightly from 2013. Guyb123321 (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The comparison is incorrect; whilst that may be the case the data does not show that trend in that the two sets are incomparable. Hayek79 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Those green and red arrows are surely incorrect atm??? Tigerboy1966  12:22, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope, they aren'tGuyb123321 (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I see this is being addressed already. It does look a bit odd when you see the Conservatives gaining four points and losing 231 seats. Tigerboy1966  09:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats because the swing is based on what happened since last year (as it is based on the National Popular Vote, as calculated by the BBC) while the seat change is predominantly based on the last elections in 2010 Guyb123321 (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three separate discussions on this. Can this be moved? Hayek79 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

be my guest. I am a bit embarrassed to have raised this without having read the rest of the page. Tigerboy1966  22:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

UKIP page move[edit]

Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency of Comparison[edit]

Some of this years seats are being compared to 2010 (last time specific seats were up for grabs) and some 2012 (last time these wards had a seat up for grabs). Which of these is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The "Swing" Figures are suitable. In local elections, The BBC takes the results, and extrapolates them out so as to see what percentage the parties get if the elections had happened across the UK. For this reason the "percentage vote" for 2014 is directly comparable with that of 2013, 2012 or 2011 despite the fact that different councils had seats up over the different local election years. Thats why a swing between these local elections and last years local elections is perfectly acceptable, despite the fact different seats were up Guyb123321 (talk) 18:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

We are not using BBC extrapolations (if indeed they exist), the "swing" (which is not actually swing) shown in the infobox is a direct comparison with the data on the United Kingdom local elections, 2013 page, which is why any such comparison is inappropriate. Hayek79 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

If a local council elects in thirds, the correct (and I mean, the only) comparison is with 2010. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:39, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
But we already use the BBC's "National Projected Vote" (NPV) for swings across all local elections, with the swing being every year as opposed to every four years. You can go right back to the 2005 local elections to see that every page has a swing comparing it with the previous year so that for example 2010 is compared with 2009, not 2006, 2011 is compared with 2010 not with 2007, 2012 is compared with 2011, not with 2008 and 2013 is compared with 2012, not with 2008. In my view, since the BBC extrapolates the results to take into account that some counties aren't voting in these local, while some areas such as London are obviously all voting, the NPV compared to last year is the correct, accurate way that swing should be shown.

The NPV that the BBC calculates, is not done by simply adding up all the votes for UKIP, Con, LibDem and Lab and then working out a percentage, its so much more complicated than that, meaning that even if you did want to change the way wikipedia shows the swing to the elections happening four years ago then you would have to change the percentages because if you looked at the actual votes, I'm sure Labour won very much more than 31%, as most of the areas voting this year, London and the Metropolitan Boroughs, are heavily Labour, the vote percentage that we have reported, is if these elections had happened across the country. Guyb123321 (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have missed it, as I am very tired, but can anyone find the NPV on the 2013 page? Where is it on this page because I feel it ought to be? United Kingdom local elections, 2013 Hayek79 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Right in the infobox, where it says Popular Vote, and the swing is that from the 2012 elections :) Guyb123321 (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There are three references in the infobox on the United Kingdom local elections, 2013 article, two are from the "Local elections 2012, by Feargal McGuinness & Edmund Tetteh, House of Commons Library Research Paper 12/27, 21 May 2012" research paper, which provide support for figures from the 2012 local elections; the second is one I put there yesterday for UKIP. Likewise on the United Kingdom local elections, 2012 page the sources are taken from The Guardian. There are no citations provided for the claim that the "swing" is calculated using the BBC NPV. Hayek79 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If you cant compare them, then how come they are the same figures that the BBC is using and the media is or has been reporting them for example on the BBC's "Vote 2014" coverage they've repeatedly said that UKIP is "down slightly" in the NPV. Its claimed as factual by all the news sources I see, so I dont understand your argumentGuyb123321 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

They're not cited, so the claim cannot be made. If it is "claimed as factual by all the news sources I see", then by all means add them as references, otherwise I will remove "swing" from this and every article in the United Kingdom Local Elections category. At present it is a simple deduction from the figure provided for the previous year, when it ought to be for 2011 given that councils are elected in thirds. Hayek79 (talk) 22:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What we need is a source that explicitly says that "UKIP were down 5%" or that "there was a 5% swing againt UKIP". Otherwise it looks like WP:OR or WP:SYN.  Tigerboy1966  06:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, when I have time, possibly today, I shall make the necessary changes. Hayek79 (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Turnout, Summary of Results, and Shift of Control[edit]

Where do people think these sections should be located in the article? BananaLanguage (talk) 19:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Towards the top as part of an overview of what happened at the elections. Argovian (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, please remember that this article should cover the Northern Ireland elections too - it's a UK article, not just England. In previous UK local elections articles the infobox included the election results from Wales/Scotland/NI. Argovian (talk) 09:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

Why is this article called United Kingdom local elections, when Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not involved? I realise it's part of a series and might be quite complicated to change to English. Chris55 (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've answered my own question by reading the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom local elections, 2009. Chris55 (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, there should be more on the N. Irish elections in this article, including the infobox. (UKIP won seats in NI and these should be included in their tally in the infobox, for example.) Previous articles in this series (UK local elections) have infoboxes that include England+other nation(s). Argovian (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I have added UKIP's NI seats to their tally in the infobox, with a note pointing out the separate English and N. Irish tallies. Argovian (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I've added a table of the seats won in Northern Ireland - but UKIP comes under 'others' as it only won 3 scattered seats. Chris55 (talk) 10:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
UKIP are in the article's info box and their NI seats are included in that info box figure, therefore they have been added to the NI table as well. Owl In The House (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

National vote of smaller parties[edit]

I'm trying to find the the vote share, and the percentage of the vote share (gained or lost) for each political party; particularly the smaller ones (like the Greens). Is there anyone who can help me, I've been having difficulty finding this information? 2A01:388:201:3320:952F:DB93:D63:3164 (talk) 14:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, projected national shares aren't calculated for the smaller parties, even the Greens. They didn't even use to calculate for UKIP until a year ago. PNS is a tricky thing to work out, and for smaller parties like the Greens they're just to hard to pin down with much accuracy. Maybe someone's calculated their share of the vote for these elections alone, as opposed to trying to extrapolate for PNS, but I don't know where you could find such data. Redverton (talk) 13:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Probably doesn't count as a reliable source, but has what you want. Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No,those aren't PNS figures Bondegezou and no the source isn't reliable/sufficient for this sort of purpose. Owl In The House (talk) 12:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Tower Hamlets[edit]

I think that there's enough info out there for a subsection on the controversial elections in tower hamlets. If someone has time (before I do) it'd be worth adding. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Would definitely be could to cover events around Tower Hamlets, but why not do it on the Tower Hamlets election article? Bondegezou (talk) 17:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Good point, a small mention here with a larger one on the Tower Hamlets election article. It's valid in both places. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I've just created a new section at the end for "Electoral administration" to absorb the finer details of voting eligibility from the lede (introductory or summary) section. [Very important as an election starts, these franchise details are still worth preserving after it's over, but as background rather than in a general summary.] But I used a very general section title to include such things as ballot counting and qualification disputes. Perhaps the Tower Hamlets controversy, about which I know nothing), or parallel questions in other jurisdictions, could fit under a new subsection of "Electoral administration"; if that overall title doesn't fit, you could change it to something like "Conduct of the elections". —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I can write an entry if no one else intends to? Hayek79 (talk) 10:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the Links....[edit]

Virtually every one of the links just go to a page that says these elections will happen on this date and contain no meaningful information such as the results. Should we just not bother with the local election pages for the results in the council area since only a few actually have informationGuyb123321 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:52, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)