Talk:2016 London Assembly election

This 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.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

London High‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Overview

The final sentence in the overview currrently reads, "Registered voters[3] must sign up in advance to vote on 19 April 2016. [4]" If anyone knows what this is intended to mean perhaps they could amend it so that it clearly says that. Otherwise it should be deleted.Tom Beaton (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Only the two largest parties Labour and Conservative should be included, both won constituency and London wide seat, and only one of those two parties has any realistic chance of controlling the assembly. The other parties are so far behind including them is not necessary. If the parties which had won seats had won constituency and London wide seats, then I would be all for including, as they have not they should not be included. Sport and politics (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. No party controls the London Assemly as it is elected via a system of proportional representation and is unlikely to produce a majority for any one party. The purpose of the assembly is to scrutinise the mayor, which is why the diversity is valued. The Greens and Lib Dems might be far behind Labour and Conservatives, but the difference by proportion is much smaller than the difference between the largest and smallest parties included in the info box of the UK general election pages. To be consistent, we must include the Greens and Lib Dems. cuttellhell (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for Ali as Green candidate

The section on list candidates has a source, citation 14, from the Green Party as to who their list candidates are. In the table, after Shahrar Ali, an additional citation is given of [1], which confirms Ali is third on the list and, indeed, gives the full list.

This seemed rather redundant to me: we've got an authoritative source from the Green Party itself as to who all the candidates are, so why give an additional cite just for Ali? It seems like unwarranted promotion of Ali's candidacy. I'm also uncertain whether Bright Green constitutes a reliable source.

So, I removed the additional citation. User:Gravitationpull reverted me. Thus, I come here.

I think it is WP:UNDUE to select one person on a list and give a citation for them if we have an entirely adequate citation for the whole list. Gravitationpull: would you mind sharing your rationale for the inclusion of this additional citation? Everyone else: thoughts, anyone? Bondegezou (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 14 contains a list order that was subsequently corrected due to a miscount. Additional cite explains this. Verified also by London Green Party here [2] Gravitationpull (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If User:Gravitationpull thinks it is really so important to have a citation for Shahrar Ali being 3rd on the list, fair enough: replace citation 14 with https://london.greenparty.org.uk/news/2015/11/17/re-ordering-of-london-wide-list-of-candidates-for-the-london-assembly/. Like Bondegezou I can't see that we need the need for an additional cite just for Ali. Most candidates of most parties listed aren't sourced at all. DrArsenal (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Gravitationpull, for the explanation about the list order change. I agree with DrArsenal about the solution though. Bondegezou (talk) 07:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in the infobox

Would it not make more sense to have the pictures of the mayoral candidates in the infobox than the national party leaders? The "Leader" row can be amended to state "Mayoral candidate" instead. Number 5 7 16:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every other London Assembly election has featured infobox photos of the UK party leader. Additionally, this proposal could cause confusion in linking the Mayor and the Assembly, which are separately elected. For example Boris Johnson won the Mayoral election in 2012 but Labour won the Assembly election. AusLondonder (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bad idea being repeated elsewhere doesn't make it ok. And the argument about the different winners of the mayoralty and GLA apply equally to the national party leaders. Maybe the party's respective leaders in the GLA would be better then. Number 5 7 20:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's long-standing precedent, that's all. However, I see merits in your argument. I think the chances for confusion would be greater in having the Mayoral candidates compared with the national party leaders as the Mayoral candidate is standing in the London elections, just not this part. The GLA leader idea makes more sense. AusLondonder (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think GLA leader or first name on list would make more sense. Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agree that it should be GLA leader or first name on list. It seemed paradoxical to me that it was party leaders who often don't have any greater connection to London than the fact that London is the seat of Parliament. DrArsenal (talk) 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assembly top-up method

Someone added numbers to show how the Assembly list members are elected, which was useful... except I don't now understand why UKIP got the last seat over the Women's Equality Party? Are the numbers wrong? Bondegezou (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a bit of head-scratching and checking "To be included in this calculation, each party or independent candidate must receive more than 5% of the total number of London-wide votes cast. Parties or candidates with 5% or less of the votes are eliminated." [3] DrArsenal (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for finding that. I was most puzzled. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vote totals?

Just happened to notice that the 39.8% figure for the List vote doesn't seem to match up to other sources - BBC News has it at 43% http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2016-36206505 And a totalling up of all the individual ward results has it at 40.3%. Looks as if editor has divided the Labour vote by the 'total vote' including rejected ballots, I've adjusted this to only be a percentage of valid votes as that seems to be the common practice in other reporting of election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.238.168 (talk) 19:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on a RfC at Talk:Jeremy Corbyn#RfC on infobox image

Please share your input in an RfC relating to what image should be used in the infobox at the Wikipedia page for the Leader of the British Labour Party (and in election infoboxes, such as the one at this page) AusLondonder (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which leaders to show?

@FriendlyDataNerdV2: You've changed the leaders in the infobox from the national party leaders to the London leaders. Previous consensus was to use national party leaders, although I've never felt strongly either way on that point and practice has varied.

You say you've, "Added London Assembly Group leaders as Leaders in infobox (or post-election group leader where there was no incumbent group leader - e.g. UKIP who had no group and Greens who saw both incumbent AMs stand down". I am concerned about this retrospective choice of who constitutes the leader. The infobox should describe the election, so whoever is shown should represent who was in charge during the election, not who was picked afterwards. We had a heated discussion about this at Talk:National_Assembly_for_Wales_election,_2016#Neil_Hamilton_infobox_inclusion, with the decision to show Nathan Gill, Welsh UKIP leader during the election, winning out over Neil Hamilton, Assembly leader after the election. For consistency, we should do the same here: show whoever was in charge of UKIP London or the London Greens during the election campaign. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok - I looked at the talk page and there seemed to be a view on changing it but it wasn't done. My bad. Happy for it to revert if you do have an objection to the style.

As for the question of who to include, fair point! With Greens it's easier, but UKIP didn't have a group and so had no group leader. Unlike the Lib Dems, they have no 'Leader in London'. So I suppose the most accurate thing to do would be to put 'none' - but that seems wrong given that in a technical sense, their mayoral candidate 'led' them. Have reverted the change for now as don't want to cause any controversy FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know when it's better to put a regional leader and when the national leader. My gut feeling is that voters have no idea who the London leader is of any of the parties and it's the national leaders, or indeed the Mayoral candidates, who matter. Whereas in the case of the Scottish Parliament, say, it does seem reasonable to use the Scottish party leaders. Bondegezou (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]