Talk:2006 London local elections

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

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Predictions+

Where do the predictions for holds come from? There's a fariyl significant chance, e.g., of Tower Hamlets moving into NOC. Camden is less likely but also possible (all three big parties are moving resources in there from outside at present).

Is it even appropriate for wikipedia to list predictions like this in advance, given that they are by their nature, highly subjective? Gerry Lynch 12:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I think the predictions are very subjective - perhaps changing it to mark how marginal the council is and which party is second would be more NPOV. Davewild 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The predictions of holds are based on an absence of prediction of change in press reports at the time. The main article was a Guardian article, I assumed those Councils not mentioned would be likely to stay the same (even where I had a suspicion this was not the case from local knowledge). It would be better to do a more thorough search and find evidence to justify this, as I have now done. Tower Hamlets at the moment is only being marked as "interesting to watch", which is probably a sign that no-one is sure what will happen. Nevertheless, the current prediction is that it will stay the same (since it is explicitly not one of the seven boroughs predicted to change hands by London Communications Agency). [1] I will add references to the hold boroughs for this article. Unless you find reported evidence that Tower Hamlets or any borough will change then it might be best to leave as it is.Captainj 19:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading your comments, I see more now what you were getting at. As the person who created the predictions I would support Davewild's idea of replacing them with how marginal the council is and which party would be second as it would be clearly more factual and less opinion based. I, however would be hardpressed to find the time to do that for more than a couple of councils....

Captainj 19:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The predictions, aside from being POV are, in some cases, referencing no more than wishful thinking. The reference for Lambeth states, The Liberal Democrats ................. aim to become the largest party in Lambeth, I'm sure they do - but the same could be said of the local Labour group, and in no way could it be considered a prediction. Now that all the significant results are known it is time to change the predictions column to show the results. Fanx 15:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just too complex

This is just tooooo complex to represent accurately and we are dependent on very subjective sources (the vote-2006 boards are the most useful but hardly impartial)

My assessment (and I'd rate my judgement as a bit higher than the average Guardian hack on these matters) would be:

SAFE

Safe Lab: Barking, Ealing, Greenwich, Hackney, Newham

Safe Con: Bromley, Enfield, Kensington, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Westminster

Safe LD: Islington, Sutton

Safe for the ruling LD/Lab coalition, no chance of an one party win: Waltham Forest

IN AND OUT OF NOC

LD/Con coalition, LD looking for outright win, Lab looking to regain control: Lambeth (the better prospect for Labour but I'd say less than 50:50 chance), Southwark (the better prospect for the LDs to win outright, with the Greens not nominating in East Dulwich I'd say better than 50:50)

Lab at risk of losing to NOC: Lewisham (just about possible), Hounslow (possible), Tower Hamlets (less than 50:50), Camden (more than 50:50), Brent (almost certain)

Con at risk of losing to NOC: Barnet (events, dear boy)

Possible Con gain from NOC: Harrow (very difficult to call given what happened with LD nominations in 2002), Havering (very likely as Residents' Assoc collapse), Hillingdon (more than 50:50 but Labour also entertain very outside hopes of breaking back)

STRAIGHT PARTY SWAPS

Con at risk of losing to LD: Richmond (less than 50:50)

LD at risk of losing to Con: Kingston (less than 50:50 but may go NOC if Labour can hold on in Norbiton)

Lab at risk of losing to Con: Bexley (almost certain), Hammersmith (more likely than not), Croydon (difficult to predict), Merton (less than 50:50)

Lab at risk of losing to LD: Haringey (very outside possibility, if Greens/Respect pick up a few seats may go NOC)

...not that easy to represent in an article that also meets Wikipedia's quality control standards!!! So why not just drop it. Or have a wikipinion website! Gerry Lynch 17:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]