Talk:2021 London Assembly election

Possible change in the electoral system

At the recent general election, the Conservative Party manifesto proposed switching how the London Mayor is elected to first-past-the-post. Although the Assembly is not mentioned in the manifesto, we had a RS report that they also planned to switch the Assembly to FPTP. This was inserted into the article.

However, the Conservatives failed to obtain a majority at the election and have now formed a minority government. The recent Queen's Speech had no mention of changing the electoral system for mayors or the Assembly. Thus this edit from Sport and politics. While I understand S&P's viewpoint, I suggest it is mistaken. It seems to me that it is speculation to presume the plans have been dropped. We have no RS reports on this matter. They may have been dropped, they may not. Until we know something, I think it better to leave the material in. Bondegezou (talk) 11:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

The information is now included in the most appropriate place, and that is here and not on this page, which is not for general information on the election of members to the assembly. This is for the elections themselves. Sport and politics (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Target Seats

Where is the information regarding target seats from? There are no references here. Seems to be pure speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjashwell (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be simply based on the previous result, these being the most marginal seats. I'm OK with keeping such content in, but it needs to be described appropriately. Such are not necessarily the seats that parties will target. Bondegezou (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

As a casual viewer it appears to me that this describes choices those political parties have made, so I think it's misleading. Perhaps the section could be renamed or at least have an explanation to this effect Cjashwell (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the wording, but happy to see further editing. Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Portrait of Gerard Batten MEP, leader of UKIP.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

UKIP's infobox inclusion

It seems rather strange to include UKIP within the infobox as although it did win seats in the previous election, both members resigned from the party and moved to the Brexit Alliance group. As such should this group (which is not a political party) which has not given any indication to whether they will run in the election be included, with or without UKIP or should none of them be included within the infobox. JDuggan101 ^{talk. | Cont.} 17:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

At 2019 European Parliament election in the United Kingdom, we based the infobox before the election on seats currently held. By that logic, we should drop UKIP as not holding any seats at present.

Brexit Alliance is not registered as a political party, so they can't stand in elections as yet. In the absence of any further information, I think therefore we should omit them. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Kurten

As I understand it, Whittle leaves UKIP in Dec 2018. Kurten steps down as UKIP Education Spokesman, but remains in UKIP. London Assembly rules mean both are now disadvantaged, so they create the Brexit Alliance group, but it's an Assembly group, not a party. It doesn't change Kurten's party membership.

This Jan 2019 report has Kurten still in UKIP.

This Mar 2019 report also has Kurten still in UKIP, but possibly not RS. This from the same month says the same, and may be more RS.

It's only in summer 2019 that Kurten appears to leave UKIP. There are two Sputnik citations here, and they're problematic re RS. This on 1 July has Kurten still in UKIP, but this on 5 July has him as formerly in UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

So, there's also a 7 May 2019 report in the Daily Mail ("UKIP LEADER IS STANDING DOWN", no byline) saying he's still in the party. And a 28 March 2019 report in the Daily Express ("Today was meant to be Brexit Day - instead we have chaos, fear and dunces running the show", no byline). I think we can be confident he was still in UKIP through much of 2019. It would be good to have sourcing that he's now left given the issues with Sputnik, the current source being used. His Twitter biog doesn't mention UKIP, as nor do this 10 July article and this one, same day, he wrote. But they don't explicitly say he is not UKIP. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

There's a more recent Express article that counts him as still UKIP. There doesn't seem to be an appropiate source either way, so I think we can do without mentioning it for the time being. Ralbegen (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

This Pink News piece from Aug has Kurten in UKIP, and there was another Express piece from early Aug also having him in UKIP. However, his website, Twitter and Facebook all give the impression that's he's not in UKIP any more, without explicitly saying anything. It seems bizarre that this is such a difficult question to answer... Bondegezou (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

David Kurten, in this August 2019 online interview, does explicitly say that he is still a member of UKIP and he remains a UKIP representative on the London Assembly, but that the UKIP group name had to be changed to the 'Brexit Alliance' as Kurten wanted to remain in a group with Peter Whittle, who has left UKIP. As David has explicitly said he is still a member of UKIP, I will re-add David Kurten to the infobox on the UK Independence Party article. - https://twitter.com/UnityNewsNet/status/1156923418580848640 PlatinumClipper96 (talk) 11:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That is... well, not a reliable source, but I think we can take Kurten's own description of his situation as being reliable. What he says is complicated, perhaps one could say non-binary. He says he is a member of UKIP, but also says he supports The Brexit Party (a rival party) and doesn't have much contact with the UKIP leadership. This is consistent with his own online profile not mentioning UKIP. But he does say he is still in UKIP. (Is he sitting for UKIP &/or the Brexit Alliance? Unclear.) I accept that we shouldn't say he's left UKIP, as he hasn't. Given an either/or choice, yes, he should be represented on the UKIP page as 1 London Assembly Member. Bondegezou (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

His party is described on the London assembly as Brexit Alliance. I agree that his word is appropriate per WP:SELFSOURCE to support that he's still a member of UKIP, and that could be useful to mention in the article. I don't think that what we have supports the idea that UKIP has a London Assembly member, given that the London Assembly doesn't describe him as sitting for UKIP (and in lieu of any other RS discussion of the topic). Ralbegen (talk) 16:38, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

What Kurten said at the time, and at the time he was more forward in still identifying with UKIP, is that there are benefits that groups get on the London Assembly, but with a minimum group membership of 2. So when Whittle left UKIP, they would've lost those benefits, so they created the Brexit Alliance as a way of working together and retaining group benefits. As far as I can tell, the Brexit Alliance only exists as a London Assembly group. It is not a party; it is not registered as a party; it cannot be a designation at elections. So, previously, it seemed more appropriate to follow reliable reporting of all this and Kurten's own words over the WP:PRIMARY source of the Assembly webpage for Kurten. Kurten now has somewhat distanced himself from UKIP, but I think it's still accurate to say UKIP has 1 AM. Bondegezou (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right that the Brexit Alliance only exists as a London Assembly group, but Kurten is sitting as a Brexit Alliance AM rather than a UKIP AM. So I'd read it as that one UKIP member is an AM, but the party doesn't have an AM. I think Frank Field is probably the best analogy, when he ceased to be a Labour MP but intended to stay a Labour member (unsuccessfully), in which case there would have been one more Labour members in Parliament than the party had MPs. Kurten's statements are also primary sources, so I don't think we have the sort of definitive secondary source that would clear things up nicely. Ralbegen (talk) 21:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right that Kurten is sitting as a Brexit Alliance AM. What I'm not convinced there is adequate sourcing for is the contention that he is not sitting as a UKIP AM. He has been described in those terms by RS, and I think by himself, post the formation of the Brexit Alliance. Maybe the better analogy is of Labour and the Co-operative Party? Bondegezou (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

That makes sense. In angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin terms I'm still unconvinced that he necessarily counts, but you're definitely right that RSes have described him as a UKIP AM post-Brexit Alliance—specifically the Evening Standard article you linked at the very beginning. I hadn't figured that out and it's definitely enough to go on in the absence of conflicting RS coverage. Ralbegen (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

This is reliable and has him as ex-UKIP. On his own website, he has also announced he "will be standing in the London Mayor and Assembly list elections on 7th May 2020 as an Independent candidate." Bondegezou (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand Kurten left Ukip on 31 January. Presumably he sees no future in the party or its brand now that Brexit has happened and an independent bid is more viable.

With regards to all the party label discussion, this sort of thing often arises because there is no formal requirement for people to sit under the same party label they're elected for. It is very common for councils up and down the country to have various council groups made up of independents, separate localist parties and the like. Sometimes big name parties will have a group that includes additional independents. Such arrangements help party groups to qualify for positions and resources in a way that separate councillors don't but don't mean the councillors have actually changed party.

The "Brexit Alliance", like the "Ukip-Veritas" group in earlier years, is little more than a technical group that was set up to allow the two members elected as Ukip to retain groups rights and privileges despite one of them leaving the party. Effectively each was a coalition of a Ukip AM and another AM and the former initially remained a Ukip AM though later left the party altogether. Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:26, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Constituency candidates

Thanks, Ralbegen, for doing the table of constituency candidates. I'd remove the column for UKIP for now, unless there's an RS citation confirming they intend to stand candidates. Bondegezou (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Done, that's very reasonable. It can always be restored if they end up standing candidates. Ralbegen (talk) 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-shape the candidates sections

Now that a lot of parties have se up their London-wide selections should we amalgamate them into one table? all the details about the parties could be put into a different section, either a Campaign or Candidates sub-section. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this would be a sensible development. Ralbegen (talk) 22:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Explanation of Additional Member System

Would some kindly help me understand the math of the region-wide vote share and how seats are allocated? I ask, because I'm not sure, for instance, how Labour garnered 40% of the region-wide vote and the Tories 29% of the vote, but they both ended up winning 3 list/regional seats. How are the constituency seats taken into account when allocating the regional seats? --Criticalthinker (talk) 08:37, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The total number of seats is made to be proportional. So if you win lots of constituency seats, you start the allocation process with lots and don't get any or many more top-up seats. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

For someone unfamiliar with this system, the explanation is a bit confusing. And I'm not sure of a rewording that would make it more clear on it face, but I imagine there has to be one. If anyone can think of a clearer explanation, that'd be great. As I understand it, now, it's essentially starting the d'Hondt method in the middle of the process, after the initial constituency seats have been rewarded. So perhaps it'd be worth clear yadding that these aren't two seperate/parallel elections, rather it's two linked elections. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And, BTW, why is Labour only fielding 4 London-wide candidates while all other parties are fielding quite a few more apiece? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Because mathematically it is impossible for Labour to achieve more than four Londonwide seats. If Labour gain a constituency, like they are expected to, they would lose a Londonwide seat. The AMS system isn't designed to create a majority, but be proportionate, thus it encourages Labour to work with another party (e.g the Greens) to have a majority in the Assembly. (in my opinion, it is a silly voting system, "pure" PR or STV are better) Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:59, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I think that they've selected more than just those four, but haven't announced all of them yet. Miriam Mirwitch announced that she'd been selected as the tenth list candidate some time after the initial candidates had been announced but there hasn't been anything in RS coverage about more than the first four. Ralbegen (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The only source I've seen was Labour List saying only the top four were selected. How strange. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Additional question: This page has Shaun Bailey listed as a candidate for a London-wide seat on the assembly, but also listed as the Tory candidate for the 2021 London mayoral election. Is one of these pages out-of-date, or is it possible to be simultaneously selected to run for both? --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he is standing for both. It's noted in the campaign section in the mayoral election article that it's the first time for a Conservative candidate to do so. Sian Berry did the same thing in 2016 and is in the same position this time around too. Ralbegen (talk) 10:33, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Follow-up question: What is a candidate wins the election to both offices? I assume they get to pick which one they want to be elected to? What, then, happens to fill the now-empty seat? --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:27, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

As with the case of Bailey and Berry they are Londonwide candidates so they just wouldn't be selected and it would go to the next person Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

"Seats needed"

Is there a need for the info box on the main page include the phrase "seats needed"? The electoral system is very different to a conventional parliament or council where overall control is won by winning 50%+1 seat. Littlemonday (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Is the Women's Equality Party notable enough to be included?

I think it is questionable whether we should include the Women's Equality Party among the other notable parties in the London-wide list candidates section. The party has no elected representatives at any level of government anywhere in London (no local councillors, no members of the London Assembly etc), nor has the party been included in opinion polls. It seems a bit out of place to mention it with equal prominence in this table alongside other parties with elected representation in London. Helper201 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That's like a results box in a constituency's article; it should be exhaustive of all candidates up for election, shouldn't it? Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 London Assembly election (London-wide)

The vote for new parties in the '2021 London Assembly election (London-wide)' section should not be shown as 'New'. In 2016 the percentage for new parties was shown and change was shown as N/A, whereas in 2021 both columns for new parties show as 'New'.Dudley Miles (talk) 08:53, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Results Maps

I'm wondering about the maps in this article. There is quite a bit of redundancy in the results maps, and I think it should be cleaned up. I also wish to discuss the possible reversion of an edit by @JDuggan: in which they replaced My Results Map with almost a complete duplicate, the current version on the page. My view on this is that my version should be restored since it was the first to be uploaded, but I'm wondering what everyone else thinks. (I asked this same question on JDuggan's talk page a few days ago, but they didn't respond, and I also wanted to hear outside opinions.) Anyway, I'm hoping we can come to a resolution. Thanks. Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I am in agreement with regards to the fact that there is too many maps within the article, as they are all showing roughly the same thing. However, in your regards to Ayvind-Bjarnason's desire revert my edit seems to be quite frankly unnecessary, the map fails to show the majorities within the constituencies, which within FPTP elections are important as they highlight marginal races, uses colours which are not similar to the party's current colours (e.g. Dark Blue for the Conservatives), the lack of seat numbers which is important when it comes to a mixed system and the fact that the constituencies's boundaries are less defined which makes it less accurate. Additionally, as I made it clear within my edit I personally think aiming for consistency is very important within infoboxes, that is why last year I took the time to produce my election map for every election, as to prevent any confusion on the winners (by party) and margins. Furthermore, upon further inspection I am concerned that the alternative map fails to correctly attribute both User:DrRandomFactor and I in regards to the fact that our work seems to have been used, in terms of the Constituency Winners map being similar in regards to the designed seen in their maps and that the London map (in Additional Results) is very similar to my map in the At-Large section. Hopefully they are able to fix this issue or that I am mistaken. JDuggan (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi Ayvind-Bjarnason, thanks for starting this thread. I think the current map is less suitable for the infobox; to be honest I think all multi-party heatmaps are some not insignifcant distance from data vis best practice, especially so heatmaps with nine different shades for different parties. In both your map and Jduggan's map I think there's quite a lot more text in the image than is required by the material. In particular, Ayvind-Bjarnason's map includes multicoloured text in the legend which isn't great for accessibility, and JDuggan's includes small text throughout which is difficult or impossible to read without zooming in. I also think that the amalgamation of lots of different information into a different frames of a single graphic isn't very helpful. A bar chart lumped in with the maps is less useful to the reader than the parliament diagram already in the article.

What I'd really like to see is, for the infobox: a constituency map shaded by party only and an equally sized outline map of London with London-wide AMs represented as circles. No on-map legend or bar chart, the infobox already acts as a legend in the article and a legend can be included in the Wikimedia caption. In the article body, I think the most suitable thing would be single-party heatmaps limited to four or five different shades.

If people think that sounds sensible I'm happy to produce those maps. But we should definitely stray away from the temptations of maximalism! The infobox map should show us what the results of the election were, and that's enough. Ralbegen (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. To first reply to JDuggan's comment, I have a few things to say: there was no real need for adding a vote shares given that this map already portrayed that, and was uploaded a day before yours was. As for the party colours, I think you could have simply informed me that they were a bit off (or even edited it yourself since it's an svg), and I don't think that called for an entirely new map. The seat numbers, while I suppose they are nice to include, aren't vital, since they are shown directly above the map, in the infobox. I'm also not entirely sure what you mean in the consistency point by "to prevent any confusion on the winners (by party) and margins". Finally, If you're worried about attribution, feel free to add credits in the image source. It frankly slipped my mind to add in attributions, so I'm truly sorry about that. (Also, if I came off as confrontational at all during this correspondance, I'm very sorry about that too).

In response to Ralbegan: I can definitely see where you're coming from, and I'm glad you're thinking about accessibility. You mention a "single-party heatmap limited to four or five different shades" there is something like that in the article, though it does include 8 shades, which I would agree is a bit much. I could change my map to fit to the other changes you mention if we reach a consensus, if you would like. Overall, it would be nice if my map could be included, but it's not a hill I'm willing to die on. The article needs a bit of cleaning up, but that is the point of wikipedia, isn't it : ) Ayvind-Bjarnason (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I’ll be fairly brief so other editors can contribute but I wanted to clarify that by single party heatmaps I mean several maps, each of which shows the result for a single party (each of the big four, say). They could be put horizontally in a gallery of result maps. Ralbegen (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Seeming there has been a lack of discussion, I was expecting other contributors to discuss, I want to reignite the discussion. Ultimately, while I can understand why minimalism is needed in the infobox, I have some issues with with Ralbegen's proposal. Firstly, a 'equally sized outline map of London with London-wide AMs' may be an ideal, due to the specific dimensions of London the map becomes unnecessarily large, as I was originally planning with my map but in the end decided against it. Additionally, Creating several chlorpleth maps to show results for several parties seems unnecessary, as only two parties win constituency seats and keeping it to 4-5 shades weakens the real need for it, as it would be less clear of the marginality of each seat (that's why I personally prefer to use majority over vote share).

Ultimately, I think the best bet to ensure people are happy is to create a simpler version of my map for the infobox, with only winning parties and a small box showing the london wide seats and no key, while keeping Talleyrand6's map as it shows mainly what all of us want. Additionally I would be happy to replicate this for every London Assembly election page, so it keeps a clear and consistent throughout wikipedia. JDuggan (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd take all maps out of the infobox and focus on having clearer maps in the article. Infoboxes are not meant to be for detailed maps. Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 20 June 2021

Maybe a little compromise here. We put the simple seat map I made in the infobox but also have a graphic (preferably just move what's already in the box down) because its more informative, it gives vote share and additional seats. Also if you want I just add onto what I already made just so there's continuity. Talleyrand6 (talk) 2303, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Talleyrand6's proposal is probably a good idea. JDuggan (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Mayoral Candidate Symbol

In the candidates section, a cross (†) is currently being used to denote candidates that are also standing for mayor of London. This looks to me like a 'died in office' symbol, so I'm not sure it's the best choice. Could a different symbol be used? If it's arbitrary, I like this one: ℳ. Otherwise, maybe just an (MC) for mayoral candidate? Is there any guidance on this in the style guides? 92.239.96.120 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2024 (UTC)