Talk:2009 United Kingdom local elections

Article name

Rename to the word "England" rather than "UK", since the elections are only related to England, and not to Wales, Scotland or NI. 163.1.146.104 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this. English, Welsh, Scottish and N Irish elections are no longer together as they are a devolved matter and the politicial trends are different. AndrewRT(Talk) 12:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye. —Nightstallion 23:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose this move because all other local election articles have been styled 'United Kingdom local elections, 20xx', even when polling only took place in England - such as in 2006, where despite elections only being held in England, the article is still titled United Kingdom local elections, 2006. Spiritofsussex (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm not a fan of renaming either, so that we can keep a consistent format for these articles. If we rename then we are going to get get different titles each year (or a profileration of extra articles if each nation is given a seperate article). since 2000 we have:-

• United Kingdom local elections, 2000 - England only
• United Kingdom local elections, 2001 - England + Northern Ireland
• United Kingdom local elections, 2002 - England only
• United Kingdom local elections, 2003 - England + Scotland
• United Kingdom local elections, 2004 - England + Wales
• United Kingdom local elections, 2005 - England + Northern Ireland
• United Kingdom local elections, 2006 - England only
• United Kingdom local elections, 2007 - England + Scotland
• United Kingdom local elections, 2008 - England + Wales
• United Kingdom local elections, 2009 - England only

I think it's better to keep the same name for each but just make sure the intro is clear on where each years elections are being held. Davewild (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Alex McKee (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The text implies that the local elections cover the whole of England, but a number are not having elections this time around (including the area I'm in - we only get to vote in the european elections). 'All 27 county councils' sounds wrong to me anyway - http://www.british-towns.net/en/level_1_display.asp lists 33. 81.187.26.105 (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are some current County Councils which are being abolished and being replaced by Unitary authorities such as Cornwall or Wiltshire. This is why there are only 27 County Councils holding elections today, while there are elections for the new unitary authorities in most of the other counties. If you can suggest a better wording for the intro then please be bold and change it. (I'm in an area where there is no local election as well.) Davewild (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the wording. Hope it is clearer now..83.146.13.173 (talk) 10:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Colours

The background colours in the table cells are very strongly saturated, making it hard to read the text. I see that last year—United Kingdom local elections, 2008—there was a different table layout, perhaps for the same reason. Anyway, for the moment I'm going to reduce the saturation of the colours for the three main parties to a uniform 40%, as follows:

Con: 5B76FF → 9A9AFF
Lab: FF6868 → FF9999
LD: FFD800 → FFF099

and also

NOC: CCCCCC → EEEEEE

But if you want to switch table layouts that would be fine too. Gdr 13:54, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this - the details were very hard to read! In terms of the layout, the 2008 layout is better, I agree, and once all the results are in, then we can move them into 2008 style tables. But, I tried changing over the the 2008 style tables before the results are in, but because of things like column spans, it turned into chaos! So, once all the results are in, I will move them across to better tables. Spiritofsussex (talk) 14:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Results

Something a bit daffy seems to be up with the BBC's results. Some friends tipped me to this, but they're still showing 4 councils outstanding (30 of 34 reporting). The Telegraph shows Labour dropping 272 seats here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/local-elections/5445693/Local-elections-2009-results-map.html), while Sky News shows Labour off 329 seats (news.sky.com/skynews/Interactive-Graphics/Locals2009). Obviously, all three can't be accurate for final results, so which should we go with?Tyrenon (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Share of Vote

The fgures being shown here (38% Tory, 28% Lib Dem, 23% Labour) are BBC projected national votes not the votes cast in this election (figures which have not yet been released). It is likely, given the rural nature of most of the counties, that the Tories polled more than 38% and Labour less that 23%, The BBC's figures adjust for urban areas that did not vote this time. I thin a note to this effect should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.174.24 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:English county control

If anyone has nothing better to do then they could update this... I've already updated Devon. Jolly Ω Janner 13:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Vote comparison

The comparison of the share of vote is not a fair one. Comparing results in 2009 to 2008 makes little sense as totally different councils were being elected. Surely the comparison should be with the results four years ago, in 2005, when the councils voted in on Thursday were last voted on? GTD 09:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. We compare "like with like" in General Elections. We should to the same with County Elections too doktorb _words^deeds 10:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting the councils and councillors figures are compared with four years ago. GTD 10:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what has been said - it should really be a like for like comparison. The same problem exists with the articles for previous years such as 2007 and 2008 where the previous year's vote shares are used, despite different council being fought. Spiritofsussex (talk) 11:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Map

Anyone planning on making a map? If not, I'm tempted to make one using File:BlankMap-EnglandAdministrativeCounties.png. I will leave the local authorities that did not vote in grey as the map will only be there to display these results, plus it doesn't include the other constituent countries. Jolly Ω Janner 14:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That map is out of date - if anyone is going to do a map for this article, use this one instead: File:BlankMap-EnglandSubdivisions2009.png. (Bedfordshire and Cheshire have split.) David (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't read your comment before making the map. When I first looked at that map in more detail I did indeed notice that it was out of data and found an alternative (you can find the linl to it on the map's description page). The map has now been addded to the article. Jolly Ω Janner 15:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Percentage of votes

Are there any source which give the votes of the given parties in %? I am especially interested in how much percentage the BNP got in the election. Did they really receive up to 11% of the votes on national basis which this BBC article seems to project [1]? In that case why did they merely receive 3 councillors? -GabaG (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You may need to ask somewhere such as the Vote-2007.co.uk message board for such info, or search the web for some of the very good local election websites (I am thinking of http://www.gwydir.demon.co.uk/byelections/ for example).

As for the 11% = only a few councillors; remember that these elections take place across thousands of seats across the country, with lots of varying sizes and electorates. What looks big in numbers may be spread across a very wide number of authorities.

doktorb _words^deeds 07:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090309060038/http://www.communities.gov.uk:80/localgovernment/360902/electoralarrangements/elections/localgovernmentelections/ to http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/360902/electoralarrangements/elections/localgovernmentelections/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United Kingdom local elections, 2009. 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/20080829164205/http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/812363.pdf to http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/localgovernment/pdf/812363.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)