Talk:2015 United Kingdom local elections

Article Created

I thought I'd start the article early since the Next United Kingdom general election article which takes place on the same day is already ongoing and there are no other forthcoming local elections.

I have used the 2011 elections as a template, since local elections take place every 4 years, I have taken account of the fact that the Northern Ireland councils that were due for election will have been abolished by then as they have been replaced by a new set of councils.

I have included the UK Independence Party in the Info Box for the following reasons:

1. We have included them in the last 2 rounds of local elections once the results have come in, after relentless opposition on talk pages, those who opposed have been proven wrong 2 years running.

2. We now have various reliable sources who now say England has entered an era of "Four party politics" (with specific reference to local level, not just national), just as Scotland and Wales have. See examples from; [BBC News], [the Financial Times], [the Telegraph], [The Guardian].

3. And perhaps most importantly, most of the seats that are up for election in 2015 are in areas that have been contested in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Most councils elect their members in 3rds, with each ward having 3 seats and this is the final part of that political cycle, whereby the first and second seats have already been elected.

Please do let me know on this talk page and make any corrections yourself if I have made any errors with the data entry. I have spotted one or two myself. Current council control for most of these areas can be judged on the 2014 election results but obviously not all of them. Local Government in England....it's a messy old business. Owl In The House (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'm pretty sure I've got all the tables right, having cross referenced with the 2014 election results properly. Not sure if there are any others due to take place other than those that took place 4 years previously. Owl In The House (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved observer of some of the UKIP infobox debates, I don't know where you get this idea that 'those who opposed have been proven wrong 2 years running'. I believe the main thrust of the argument against including them was we had to judge on the last set of results for those seats, which for the elections we just had were from 2010. I think everyone expected UKIP ought to be included afterwards, but only afterwards. To be honest, this whole set of comments by you smack of trying to game the system - trying to get in your controversial changes before anyone can debate them. So, precisely because I'm an uninvolved editor to prior debates, I'm going to remove UKIP from the infobox, and ask you seek consensus here rather than trying to play the system. I have sympathy with your arguments, but this is not the way you win approval. Redverton (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support UKIP Inclusion Indeed, I'll make my opinion clear. I think we need to move with the times and include UKIP - yes, these seats were last contested in 2011, but the fact we include PNS and its comparison from the year past shows we acknowledge comparisons with the last set of elections. We should expand on that principle, and include UKIP in the infobox, and acknowledge their status as a serious political force in the country. Redverton (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this on my talk page but you seem to have ignored my main point and overemphasised the two preceding points. My main point is that the majority of these seats were last contested in 2014 and UKIP scored sufficiently well in these areas to be included in the infobox for 2015. My main argument is not one of national significance or PNS etc, it is one of local electoral performance. I'm not sure if you understand that most councils (that are not County Councils) in England elect their members in 3rds. If you compare the tables of 2014 and 2015, you will see that most of them are indeed the same. You are right to say that last time these specific seats were elected is 2011 but the last time most of these wards were contested was 2014 because they are voted on 3times in every cycle. This is the main reason UKIP are included in the infobox...because they now have an electoral track record in the majority of the areas covered, be it in terms of seats and as you say more significantly, share of the vote. Owl In The House (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Support UKIP Inclusion - I am undoing your undo and reverting the article back to its original form in accordance with wiki policy because by your own admission there is no consensus for a change from the articles original form. Even you support UKIP's inclusion. Please closely cross reference this article with the 2012, 2013 and 2014 article as well (not just 2011) and you will see why these elections are in the most part a rerun of elections that UKIP have already performed well in. You also make the point about PNS and how this is now calculated for 4 parties, not 3 and not 5, this is another valid reason for inclusion in the info box (all be it secondary). I have also highlighted reliable sources from a reasonable spectrum stating that England is now a 4 party system, this is a tertiary reason for inclusion. Indeed the case for adding UKIP to the Next United Kingdom general election box in my view is now very compelling but I feel that is something that should be discussed on it's talk page, not here. Owl In The House (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The removal was most certainly valid. As you yourself acknowledged, consensus was established against including UKIP in local infoboxes. The fact this is a new article is irrelevant - the consensus applied in general. I support your position, but stop trying to force it in. You're just trying to be sneaky about this. Redverton (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I make no such acknowledgement. In no way do I acknowledge that there is a consensus for not adding UKIP to local election info boxes, to say I do is wrong. I acknowledge that there has been relentless objection by the same editors for 2 years running. Indeed if you look at the talk pages there wasn't any consensus. No consensus for inclusion or non-inclusion of UKIP in the info box, in such circumstances the article is to remain unchanged. The nearest there was to any consensus is that there was a consensus that there was no consensus, I put it to you that such circumstances do not constitute a consensus. What has in turn been established is that there is consensus (backed by actual election results) that UKIP are included in the 2013 and 2014 info boxes, a fairly uncontroversial claim (yes?). The point I have quite plainly stated an exhaustive number of times is that, this election article in the most part covers much of the same wards that were contested in 2014. There are notable exceptions such as London which is not included (UKIP did very poorly in London anyway) in the 2015 round of local elections.

I plead with you to see reason. There is no established consensus of some kind of rule that states "UKIP is not included in the infobox unless....", that has been down to a lack of consensus. You acknowledge yourself that there had been months of bickering - that is not a consensus.

I could say lots to that, but I think it best as this stage we focus our energies on the more productive discussion below. At the end of the day, we both at least agree there is a big segment of editors from the last two elections who are against having UKIP in the infobox. We should do want we can to establish a consensus, one way or another, so we avoid these prolonged debates from those elections happening once again. Redverton (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion break

You know, considering my primary goal here is to follow what consensus says, it seems we're avoiding the obvious solution. How about we set up an RfC? At least this way we can avoid any repeat of 2013/2014 - and establish a new general consensus (or not) once and for all. Redverton (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I of course welcome any comment from any other editors to resolve this matter. Like I say though, I think it is pretty clear what the baseline is and that is based on the most recent actual election results for the wards being contested. User:Bondegezou is perhaps one of the most frequent contributors to these election articles. Would be interested to hear from him/her. Owl In The House (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Bringing someone here who also supports having UKIP in the infobox is not going to resolve this. I want UKIP too. We need to bring in people with differing viewpoints. An RfC would bring in both experienced players in this debate, but also - crucially - outsiders who come in this with an uninvolved viewpoint. The purpose of the RfC would be clear - do we put UKIP in the infobox now or not? An RfC would at least - hopefully - ensure we do not have a repeat of 2013/2014 on this talk page. I for one am sick to death on the endless debates there were on those page, and I wasn't even involved. Just got sick seeing everyone talking about that, and not actually doing improvements on the article itself. Do you think this a good way forward, or do you have another idea? Redverton (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I am also sick of the constant bickering and total lack of an evidence based approach. All objectors would do is base their whole argument on ioncumbancy or what happened at the last election, this has been disproven as a credible way of making such an assessment for the last 2 years running. That is the point I was making, so yes, I am in agreement with you. Lets bring in more views but if they are to base their arguments on incumbancy and if that is to trump all then I scarcely see any point in bothering. Do you see the point I am making? We need an evidence based approach in general, not for editors to be able to use one reason and one reason only to shut down discussion and block out sound reasoning. As far as User:Bondegezou goes, I think this editor is impartial and does try to take an evidence based approach, though that doesn't mean we always agree. I would say his/her opinion is just as valid as anyone elses but yes, lets open this discussion up to as many people as need be. Lets just get this sorted. You're not the only person who's sick and tired of this. Owl In The House (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Then we have a plan. I agree his opinion is valid - just that he's set out which side of the argument he's on, and we need a more balanced discussion if we're going to reach a consensus everyone accepts. To be honest, I have a feeling an RfC would see uninvolved editors swing rather heavily to our side of the argument, but we shall see what happens. I'm happy to set up an RfC in a couple of days - in the meantime, I'll search the talk pages from the prior elections to inform editors from the opposing side of the argument about what's happening. Yes, we may not agree with them, but this has to be a balanced debate. I can't imagine they would oppose an RfC either - I'm sure they're as sick of the arguments as everyone else! Redverton (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Just to restate I have arrived at my position through following reliable sources, election results, candidate numbers and generally through an evidence based approach, when it comes to Wikipedia editing I have absolutely no horse in this race. In view the evidence firmly points towards including UKIP, I have already explained why. Owl In The House (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Actually, since we'll be doing this RfC, do you think we should also raise the issue of including UKIP in the general election infobox? On the plus side, we can kill two birds with one stone by also trying to resolve that issue now. On the other hand, it has the potential to make the RfC alot more complicated. Redverton (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I know what you're saying but I think it's best to treat them separately as they are indeed separate cases with different grounds for inclusion, based on different sets of evidence. Lets keep them seperate, do this one first and then see about the general election one afterwards. Lets deal with one problem at a time. Thanks Owl In The House (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately Owl, I'm sure the opposing editors are just as convinced the evidence points to their arguments. Redverton (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Haha, I know what your saying but they base their arguments on only one piece of evidence, we're looking at the full picture and are backed up in coverage by our reliable sources. Owl In The House (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I have completely removed the infobox for now, as per arguments made by Redverton previously. There is no rush here. This is not a current, hot topic: it is a bit over 11 months away. Previous local elections articles were not created so soon. So, I am very grateful to Owl for the considerable hard work in getting this article up, but the contentious element, who goes in the infobox, that can wait a few days or weeks while a consensus is reached. Redverton's RfC seems sensible to me. We can take our time over this and do not need to be bounced into a decision.

As for what decision should be made, I am sympathetic to the argument that UKIP should be included, for reasons often stated before. Bondegezou (talk) 20:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone set up the RfC yet as they said they would, Redverton? I have not been on Wiki as much lately but will be checking in as regularly as I can. There is no desperate urgency with this article but it would be good to get the ball rolling. Owl In The House (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC: Info box inclusion

removed RFC template

Re-added Infobox

I have re-added the infobox in the format the article was set up; the same format as the preceding two articles. It is also the most recent reflection of what happened the last time there were council elections in most of the seats being contested in 2015. I set up the Rfc some time ago and it hasn't attracted any morecomment. For the time being we have 3 regular editors who have expressed support for UKIP's inclusion and non against. On the basis that there seems to be no change to the consensus I will re-add the infobox as was. That doesn't stop anyone else coming along to join the discussion, it merely puts an info box in place that there does seem to be consensus for. Owl In The House (talk) 05:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the infobox went up and thought I'd join the discussion, I agree with your viewpoint Owl In The House, the party has clearly demonstrated that it is large enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox based on the recent local elections in 2013 and 2014. Guyb123321 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Support Inclusion - As someone new to this I would definitely agree with having UKIP in the infobox. They've out-polled the Lib Dems in the last two local elections (2013,2014) and the coverage they get in the media is starting to be on a par with some of the other parties. From my perspective it would seem strange not to include them. Not sure if it is relevant for the locals, but for the European Parliamentary elections this year (2014) Ofcom defined UKIP as a "major party" for the purposes of broadcasting. (It seems this issue has already been settled, but I thought I'd add my support.) Xidon (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Support inclusion - The RfC bot sent me. UKIP is a legitimate party with a recent win that makes them an important factor in the coming elections. I don't see how they can't be included. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This exact same argument was had for the 2014 & 2013 elections, everyone knew UKIP'd be in the box on results, but a lot of people tried delaying their inclusion as long as possible. It would not be possible to assume good faith a third year running, UKIP belong in the box, they will be in the box, excluding them from the box would go against reality & RS & all relevant policies and would be inarguable bias, they've been the 3rd party in the last two locals, there is no possible scope for impartial disagreement, UKIP should not be removed from the infobox. I hope I've made my position clear :) Iliekinfo (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Central Bedfordshire and Durham

Central Beds has an all-out election on 7th May - http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/elections/default.aspx

They have the same electoral cycle as Bedford - i.e. they had an all-out election at the time of the county council elections in 2009 when Bedfordshire was split in two. Then they had another election in 2011, then every four years - 2015, 2019, etc.

Durham has no scheduled election. The only elections are 4 by-elections in Barnard Castle, Sherburn, Ferryhill and Willington & Hunwick - http://www.durham.gov.uk/media/6472/Notice-of-Election---Barnard-Castle-West-Sherburn-Ferryhill-Willington-and-Hunwick-Divisions/pdf/NoticeOfElectionVariousCounty30032015.pdf

Only councils with scheduled elections are listed on the annual local election articles, so Durham should not be included. We don't for example include Scottish, Welsh or London councils which have by-elections, so we shouldn't include Durham either.Frinton100 (talk) 16:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Forgot to say earlier - Durham has retained the county council electoral cycle - 2009, 2013, 2017, etc. Frinton100 (talk) 16:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Individual articles

Most of the individual council articles have now been created. Thanks to those who've gone and expanded some of them. Hopefully there will be more edits on the run-up to, and the fall-out of the elections themselves. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Votes Cast

I was hoping to see a breakdown of the percentage of votes cast for each party. That could be useful to compare against Councillors elected / councils controlled and also to compare against the popular vote in the general election (did people vote in broadly the same way in the local elections as they did in the general?) Wight1984 (talk) 13:45, 27 May 2015 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.182.190 (talk)

National Vote Shares to be added to infobox

https://electionsetc.com/2016/05/04/calculating-the-local-elections-projected-national-share-pns-in-2015-and-2016/ Guyb123321 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2015. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130822035308/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/students.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/students.aspx

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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)

Discrepency in vote share

So I found this PDF, found here, compiling all election data for the UK in recent history. There seems to be a discrepancy between the share detailed in this document, to the unsourced popular vote share (PVS) shown in the infobox from the BBC. There is a source posted above [1] that confirms this article PVS. Does anyone have a verified source of the PVS that confirms the BBC's numbers? Jonjonjohny (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)