Jump to content

Talk:2021 Senedd election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Support for abolition of Welsh Assembly

[edit]

The article states that polling in Feb 2021 suggested support for abolition outstripping support for independence, but only quotes a Spectator opinion article which provides no details on any actual polling, saying only "This has already happened in Wales where abolition currently outpolls independence." I am going to remove this as this is clearly not a very good source, and replace it with a more recent, relevant, cited source which puts support for abolition at 20%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joromy Kerbin (talk • contribs) 19:01, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I note that my edit has been reversed and the original inadequate source reinstated, furthermore, my source which was an actual poll instead of an opinion piece has been removed. And the user that removed it cited NPOV!

As stated previously, the source cited previously was an opinion piece and did not provide details or evidence of the claim that support for abolition was higher than support for independence. It has no place on an encyclopaedic article. I am reverting the edit and restoring the more reliable source which is well sourced. Joromy Kerbin (talk) 20:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early UK general election

[edit]

The date for the next Welsh Assembly election was put back to May 2021 because of a potential clash with a UK general election in May 2020. With the UK election now happening in June 2017 (and the following one not scheduled until May 2022), will the next Assembly election revert to the normal four year cycle? Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seat Projections ICM poll March 2019

[edit]

Labour 25 seats (22/3)

Plaid Cymru 19 (11/8)

Conservatives 14 (6/8)

Lib Dems 1 (1/0)

UKIP 1 (0/1)

https://blogs.cardiff.ac.uk/electionsinwales/2019/03/01/the-new-bbc-icm-poll/ Culloty82 (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Recent moves

[edit]

@Cordyceps-Zombie: @Amakuru: after the recent moves, I have to say, I agreed with Amakuru's decision to move the page to Next Welsh Parliament election as per MOS for foreign names. However I cannot understand the need to move the page to Next National Assembly for Wales election. The election itself will be the Welsh Parliament election as that is the name which is prescribed in law in the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill (the name itself is a hint). The name Welsh Assembly may remain at National Assembly for Wales for now, but there is no benefit in matching the election page with the main article, an article which itself will be renamed in four months time. Llemiles (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llemiles: if you want to change the name, I suggest you visit WP:RM and you can start a request for this page. The current name matches the parent article, National Assembly for Wales, but if you think there are good reasons to move to a different title, then you can propose the rename and give evidence and reasoning, then others will support or oppose the proposal. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 19:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

@Llemiles: @Inops: @Impru20: I have protected the page for 24 hours as there seems to be edit warring / content dispute going on. Please discuss the issues here, with relevant evidence, and try to come to a consensus. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Amakuru. I would like the original page restored to 23:19, 4 February 2020 however. The editing was first made by Impru20, not myself. It remained the settled edit for a while, and there has not been a body of opposition, it has only been raised once by a previous editor who did not raise a discussion, and now this instance.
The first issue in my mind is was there a Senedd/Parliament in 1404? Though the 15th century sources are inevitably limited, there is a clear body of contemporary work which says the evidence shows there was.
Then - is there a Senedd/Parliament in 2020? Yes, clearly, it's in law under that name.
By that logic, is there anything controversial or wrong in saying (roughly) the Senedd in 2020 is the first since 1404? (I don't dispute it could be worded better)
The quote from the BBC quite strongly supports that reading of the two Parliaments:

As the National Assembly for Wales looks set to be renamed the Welsh Parliament, what of its predecessor 600 years ago?

The BBC is clearly directly connecting the 1404 Senedd and the 2020 Senedd. It cannot be referring to a historic "National Assembly" because there has never been a Welsh National Assembly prior to that established by the referendum in 1997.
The above quote from the BBC and the number of other written pieces in major UK news sources shows the significance of the name in the upcoming election. It is not necessarily something which should be stated in all articles about the Assembly/Senedd, but for this election it is a notable event in Welsh history that a Parliament will be elected, not just a devolved Assembly, reflecting the development of power and legislation in Cardiff. Llemiles (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The quote from the BBC does not refer to the "Welsh Parliament" as Llemiles points out. Firstly, and under basic syntax, the subject of the sentence is clearly the "National Assembly of Wales", which is the object of the renaming (to "Welsh Parliament") and the only possible subject for a "predecessor" to be referred to. The source then goes on to describe the 15th century institution, yet without even making a direct comparison with the current one. Thus, I do not know where the It will be the first Welsh Senedd since Owain Glyndŵr held his 616 years ago statement that Llemiles is attempting to enforce into the article comes from. Aside of constituting some intrincate synthesis of material from a number of sources (none of which on its own supports such a statement), it is plainly misleading because it implies that the current reform is a re-creation of the Owen Glendower's parliament, which is obviously not true. That A and B exist as facts does not mean we are entitled to re-interpret them so as to reach a conclusion C of our own. Also pinging involved users 77.99.89.230 and Inops. Impru20talk 19:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On your reading, there was a predecessor to the National Assembly. Which National Assembly is the BBC referring to other than the 1997-2019 one? Llemiles (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 15th century one was a predecessor (not a direct one) to the National Assembly. This does not equal to the Welsh Parliament being elected in the next election being "the first since Owain Glyndŵr held his 616 years ago", which is the claim you are attempting to introduce. Impru20talk 20:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the National Assembly is, as you say, a successor to the Glyndwr Senedd of 1404, then it is especially worth noting that the 2020 Senedd is closer again to Glyndwr's. It revives the name Senedd and has primary law making powers under the Wales Act 2017. You are also overlooking the body of coverage which has arisen on this in the last year. If the 2020 Senedd was merely an extension of the Assembly then most of the pieces I have cited would have been unable to make the statements which they do. I will add an annexe of quotes below this. Llemiles (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I would say its misleading to claim the renaming of the Assembly as making it in some way a continuation or recreation of Glendower's Senedd. The renamed Assembly will have the same name as the historical gathering, but as I've said in my edit summaries, that doesn't extend to what you're adding. As far as I can see, none of the sources you've referenced (and indeed the quotes you've included below) are explicit that the newly renamed "Senedd" is a continuation or recreation of Glendower's, at most merely highlighting a historical precedence for the new name. --Inops (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Llemiles: This is your own assumption of it, not something actually backed by sources. That the current parliament will revive the name "Senned" and that it will have primary law making powers (which it already had in a limited way since the Government of Wales Act 2006, btw) is one thing. That it will be "the first Welsh Senedd since Owain Glyndŵr held his 616 years ago" is a very different one. The next Welsh Parliament will not have the same powers than those of the 1404 institution (starting with the notion of "primary law making powers" being substantially different in the 21st century than what it could have been in the 15th century) nor there is any continuity implication between both institutions outside the mere symbolism (the next parliament will be a direct continuation of the National Assembly, under a different name and increased powers). As Inop states, you could at most highlight the historical precedence of the new name with the sources you provide, but they do not introduce any additional assertion. Impru20talk 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may be your opinion that the Glyndwr Parliament is not worth mentioning, but what I am referring to in the media points to a body of opinion which asserts there is a revival of elements of the Glyndwr Parliament. Indeed the goal of the name Senedd is to revive those elements of a Parliament which have not been present in Wales in modern years. The next Parliament will not be a direct extension of the current Assembly for a number of reasons:
  • Due to wider lawmaking powers
  • A complete re-naming of the institution
  • Renaming of its acts
  • Renaming of titles of its members
  • An overhaul of the franchise - increasing to include 16 and 17 year olds
  • It will be the first time voters will elect members under the new powers granted in 2017
I think you misjudge my intentions though. I am not looking to assert that the Senedd/WP is a direct recreation of the Glyndwr Parliament. I am just saying the link and its significance particularly for this article' (the 2021 election) is too noteworthy not to be acknowledged in the intro to the article.
I am more than happy to consider any compromise wording editors can envisage, given we all seem to acknowledge the Senedd to be elected in 2021 will be quite different from the one in 2016. Something along the lines of "The 2021 election will be the first under the name Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament, a name which has not employed by any elected body in Wales in modern times. Some reporting has likened the new name to that of the Parliament held by Owain Glyndwr in 1404." I do not wish to have a war over this, I merely wish to find a way to nod to the reporting in the media re: the name Senedd, in a fair way. Llemiles (talk) 21:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix of quotes

[edit]

  • the use of Senedd as the new name for the assembly in Cardiff was a great moment of pride, referring back centuries to a Welsh parliament convened in the early 15th century - The Guardian

  • Senedd has strong historical resonance as the word for the representative body assembled in 1404 by Owain Glyndŵr - BBC newsreader Huw Edwards

  • It will be the first time in 600 years that his banner has been flown outside a Welsh Parliament. - Nation.Cymru

  • As the National Assembly for Wales looks set to be renamed the Welsh Parliament, what of its predecessor 600 years ago? [...] The parliament was held in Machynlleth that year, when Glyndwr was reputedly crowned Prince of Wales in the presence of envoys from France, Scotland and the Spanish kingdom of Castile. - BBC News

  • Lowering the voting age is one of the many changes that have been approved in passing the Bill. These include confirming a new bilingual name for the Assembly, Senedd Cymru / Welsh Parliament - a name that will more accurately reflect the institution's status as a mature legislature - National Assembly for Wales press release

    Llemiles (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 17 April 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Next National Assembly for Wales election → 2021 Welsh Parliament election – Cut and paste moves make my blood boil... Unreal7 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support moving immediately - the election itself is in law titled the election for the Welsh Parliament/Senedd Cymru. No need to pretend like it will be an Assembly election, the law is clear about what it is to be called and when it will be held. Llemiles (talk) 16:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Cefnogi It's a future election, so it should be called Welsh Parliament election. This is what the law states. But there should be rigorous redirects just in case someone forgets about the name change. It will take time to get used to the name change and Wikipedia should start to prepare for this across pages, and implement it before 5 May 2020. Cwmcafit (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The name change is well established in law. Elshad (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The name in English being changed to 'Welsh Parliament' should be reflected in Wikipedia articles. Pages for elections to the Welsh Parliament under the name 'National Assembly for Wales' can remain that way but I see no justification for pages on elections to a body which does not bear that name. I think that Littlemonday raises a sensible point; arguably this change should be made on the 5th of May. · | (talk - contributions) 13:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 May 2020

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved buidhe 15:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]


2021 Welsh Parliament election → 2021 Senedd election – With all due respect to the previous move discussion, I think it was premature to take a preference on what name to use before the Senedd itself had a chance to. The name "Welsh Parliament" was always a concession made to the AWAP-style unionists and the common name for the renamed body, even in English, is "the Senedd". That's backed up by the Senedd's style guide for the name change, which just uses "Senedd x" when talking things relating to the Senedd. "Welsh Parliament" and "Senedd Cymru" will remain the formal names, but there is no chance of ambiguity by just saying "Senedd". Sceptre (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is something Orwellian. One name means Welsh Parliament in the Welsh language and the other means the same thing in English. Interesting that our Welsh language article says the English name is Welsh Parliament. In Canada, we regularly have English and French names for things. It is fine to mention the other language name in the lede (as is done in the Canadian examples), but we should WP:USEENGLISH in the title on English Wikipedia. This article is not just written for Welsh people. We are writing for an international English speaking audience. Welsh should be used in the Welsh article, as is currently being done.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems to say that they are two names (one in English, one in Welsh), both of "equal" standing. That is a situation more like Canada's, where we should use the English name when in English and French/Welsh when writing in those languages. Other articles can be found referring to the body only as the "Welsh Parliament".--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Party leaders infobox

[edit]

The infobox seems to be getting a bit crowded - would it be appropriate to remove McEvoy, Dodds and Hamilton? They have one member each, not enough to constitute a group. Other members flying solo (John Marek & Trish Law) weren't included in previous infoboxes so I'm not entirely sure why the aforementioned three are doing in this article.2.25.38.62 (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Would agree with this suggestion. 2019 United Kingdom general election would support just going with the four main party leaders. However I do note Next United Kingdom general election has gone with a new style template which omits images and goes with a text list of all parties. I prefer the former as the images really make the article stand out though. Llemiles (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would disagree with this proposal. Trish Law and John Marek were both essentially independents (John Marek was the leader of the John Marek Party) UKIP, LD and WNP are not independents. The Lib Dems will be standing in all seats (and in every poll projection are predicted to win a seat), the WNP will be standing in numerous areas. UKIP I accept is the unknown. Who knows what the Brexit Party will be up to in 12 months time. There is every chance they won't stand/exist but I think they should stay in this info box. It might be possible to follow the Next United Kingdom general election template and incude a smaller (45px sized) picture? Littlemonday (talk) 13:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infoboxes are supposed to be summaries, and a 9-member infobox is not a summary. This discussion has been held in the talk pages of many, many, many election articles on Wikipedia and I can only repeat what has been discussed and agreed upon beforehand. The best rule of thumb is that an infobox should only feature those leaders/parties which have a realistic chance of forming a government; the leaders/parties had a top-3 finish at the previous general election or equivalent; and those parties with a national spread of candidates. This usually excludes smaller parties and new creations, which might seem prejudicial, but we have to consider that election articles are here for results, rather than promotion of every single political party on the Register of Political Parties. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removing those parties with one seat from the infobox (UKIP, Liberal Democrats, Welsh National Party, and Abolish the Welsh Assembly) only on the condition that a table be included somewhere in the main text listing all the political parties that hold seats / a seat and how many each respective party has. Otherwise I would support keeping the infobox as is. Helper201 (talk) 10:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fully acknowledge the Liberal Democrats don't meet a huge number of doktorb's criteria but they are unique in the list you mention in having fielded a national spread of candidates in every Senedd election since its creation, and for having been in government. I'd be a bit unsure about excluding the UK's fourth largest party by membership, and one which received 10+% of the vote nationally in the last parliamentary election. But clearly it's a challenging decision. Llemiles (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe later in the day we could straw-poll here and elsewhere to see where the opinion lies on the LibDem inclusion? It's certainly borderline even with, as you say, the size of the vote received at the last election. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further inspection of other Wikipedia election infoboxs I think we should probably keep thing as they are. I don't think the infobox is in any way hard to navigate or understand and supplying users with more information is only beneficial, not in any way a draw back. It would also be difficult for many Wikipedia users who are not editors to understand why the infobox explicitly states that there are all 60 seats up for election, yet if we removed some parties the total would not add up to 60. Another problem is the cut off as demonstrated by this discussion and others about where we draw the line on who should and should not be included is highly subjective and ambiguous and relies heavily on editors POV on what is and is not significant. Just because a party has one, or a small number of members does not mean they cannot have significant impact. We also have disagreement as demonstrated above regarding parties that are major on a UK scale such as the Lib Dems, but minor in terms of current status in this Parliament. I also would like to state that I highly disagree with the edit warring by 2.25.38.41, who is trying to mass remove content before a decision on what to do is formed. Littlemonday has stated disagreement with this removal and my advocacy for it was initially conditional, although I am now opposed, so consensus has in no way been achieved. Helper201 (talk) 14:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the cut-off either needs to be every party with a group in the Senedd (so, three MSs or more) as that's what Parliament sees as the significant demarcation line, or every party with at least one MS. I don't think how popular a party is "across the UK" has any bearing at all (just think of that argument in relation to the equivalent Northern Ireland page!). Personally, I think every party which has a group in the Senedd (so Lab-Con-PC), but could be persuaded. Passmebywiki (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's missing?

[edit]

General question - this article is classed as "starter" suggesting it needs a lot of work. Is there any consensus on what is missing, and/or what's most important to fix/add? Thanks Cymro (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve changed this. According to the criteria it seems at least C class, possibly even B. Start definitely seems too low on the scale for this page. Helper201 (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Date of the next election

[edit]

The "due on 6 May 2021" was changed back to the incorrect "on or before 6 may 2021". It is as likely to be after as before, and is as easy to move later as easier (eg the Llywydd has the power to vary the date by a month in either direction). I think the "on or before" is copied from the UK parliament page on the (false) assumption that elections to the Welsh Parliament work in the same way.Cymro (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This has been changed again, without any engagement on the talk page. "on or before" is incorrect. This is not Westminster, and things do not work like Westminster. Please engage on here rather than just revert my changes. Cymro (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page title

[edit]

I think we should the title from 2021 Senedd election to 2021 Senedd general election as legislation refers to elections to this body as general elections: https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/consultations/2020-06/the-senedd-cymru-representation-of-the-people-amendment-order-2020.pdf Ciaran.london (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid proposal under WP:NCELECT. Impru20talk 20:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should technically probably be 2021 Welsh general election, but I think that 2021 Senedd election is common usage, and arguably clearer and more useful Cymro (talk) 09:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - Part Two.

[edit]

I'm bringing up an old debate which was never properly resolved - the issue of the infobox. I want to see it reduced for the following reasons;

  1. I know it's a smaller chamber than Westminster but even with seven parties, having every single party with representation looks a little bit messy - three parties have a sole representative and another has just two - not to mention the fact that two of these leaders aren't even MSes themselves.
  2. Looking back at the previous talk section, there was a comment that John Marek wasn't listed in the infobox and another user responded with the argument that he, even though he was the leader of a party, was "essentially an independent" - in all honesty that's exactly what Neil McEvoy and the WNP looks like to me. A single-digit number of defections on a local council level doesn't scream "this party will make up a significant proportion of the Senedd's composition this year" to me.
  3. The same user argues that the WNP should be included because they plan on standing in many seats - whether that proves to be true or not, the Greens and UKIP have stood in a significant number of seats in both Senedd and Westminster elections. They're not in any infoboxes from any election this century because they did not have significant representation - the number of seats they contested is essentially irrelevant.
  4. For the same of complete information, a new table underneath is created with the exact detailed composition of every party to be represented. I'm acknowledging the point that we need this information somewhere, but the infobox is meant to be a quick sum-up, not the full monty.
  5. Finally, I know the infobox is not meant to be based on speculation but I can't imagine UKIP and Neil McEvoy's one man band ending up with any seats either. It's going to look ridiculous if, going forward, we include every party to have representation in the years leading up to that election. These smaller fringe parties are going to come and go - we can't keep chopping and changing the infoboxes every five years whenever a disenfranchised MS changes party mid-term.

So to sum up, for the sake of making the page look tidier and consistent with previous elections' articles, for the reasons mentioned above I propose reducing the infobox just Labour, Plaid and the conservatives. I'll accept maybe we need to keep the Liberal Democrats too, considering they're part of the coalition government, but honestly I don't see the need for the other minor parties. Afreoleidddra (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it looks fine. Bogus Fireplace (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is to be limited, then it should be based on parties that have a recognised group in the Senedd (ie 3 or more MSs). That would be the big three parties. Cymro (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the Lab / Lib Dem coalition continues (as looks likely), it would be amiss not to include the Lib Dem result in the infobox. As it stands, only four parties will win seats in this election, so there's no real reason not to include them all. Domeditrix (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green party constituency candidates

[edit]

- do we know if the Greens are standing candidates in the constituencies? Their website has only regional candidates listed and no indication there will be any for the constituencies.Cymro (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Nominations

[edit]

How do we include smaller parties in the regional list nominations? Conscious that 'others and independents' is empty at the moment, but if we aren't going to include, for example, the Communist Party of Britain's candidates under their own heading, then do we put them under 'others and independents'? TotalDynamic (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Total Dynamic (talk • contribs) [reply]

We could use the same format as 2016 with a separate table for every region, this would create more space for minor parties. Cwmcafit (talk) 10:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the" Senedd Cymru

[edit]

Someone has been changing the opening sentence incorrectly claiming both that it is correct grammar to say "the Senedd Cymru", which it isn't, since "Senedd Cymru" effectively includes the definite article, and that the incorrect usage reflects use by the Senedd itself, which is untrue. They linked to the Senedd's search page as proof, but looking through a range of the results on that page and they are things like "the Senedd Cymru campaign" or "the Senedd cymru website", and not referring to the institution. I can only assume the person changing it doesn't understand Welsh or the usage of Welsh as part of English, as "the" Senedd Cymru is nonsensical. I did revert their mistake, but it was re-reverted, so I assume the next step is to post on the talk page as I am here. If this is not the next step, please do correct me. Many thanks. Cymro (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the next stop is to take to the talk page indeed, and thank you for that.
Well for a start it doesn't matter that the noun of Senedd Cymru is Welsh, the fact is we're putting it into an English sentence in an English language encyclopaedia and as a result the English language rules of grammar and dealing with a noun apply, not the Welsh rules. No I don't speak Welsh, but that's not actually relevant to this context as we're dealing with English, just with a loan noun. As for the examples in the search results, it's quite clearly used in English (not all the time, but frequently) that even the Senedd official memos, public agenda publications and letters use "the Senedd Cymru"
  • Elin Jones AM, said:"This important vote puts Wales firmly on the road towards votes at 16 becoming a reality for elections to what I hope will become the Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament in 2021."
  • "In accordance with the procedure set out in paragraph 5(15) of Schedule 7 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, this instrument must be approved by the Senedd Cymru before the Senedd approves...",
  • "This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared by Local Government Strategic Finance Division and is laid before the Senedd Cymru in conjunction with the above subordinate legislation and in accordance with Standing Order 27.1.
  • From official minutes "As Welsh devolution matures, 21 years into existence, the need for the UK Government to show greater respect and understanding of the powers of the Senedd Cymru Welsh Parliament are all too evident."
All that being said, I do find this interesting which seems to go some way to your point "1. Standing Order 21.2(vi) – that its drafting appears to be defective or it fails to fulfil statutory requirements. The definition inserted by article 3(3) refers to “the Senedd Cymru” [emphasis added]. It appears that the inclusion of the definite article is erroneous, as the Government of Wales Act 2006 refers to “Senedd Cymru” throughout, without “the” preceding it."
What is this saying? At best it seems that official use is at least mixed on the definite article, with multiple individuals using it and it being used on many occasions. Right or wrong, it appears to follow the rules for insert of a noun in English to use it, since the origin of the noun is irrelevant, but ultimately whatever the majority decides. Canterbury Tail talk 12:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I think there may be some additional confusion from the use of "the Senedd Cymru/the Welsh Parliament" which assigns a definite article to both, but the main issue I have is that "the Senedd Cymru" reads like someone talking about "the Wikipedia" or "the Microsoft" - the name "Senedd Cymru" is either Welsh, in which case it definitely doesn't need a definite article, or it is English (which is legally what the legislation does) in which case it is the name of the institution, not a description (ie it isn't the welsh parliament, distinguishing it from others, as it is the name of the institution and doesn't require a "the").
Given that you've indicated there is a lack of certainty, it seems important that one reads like incorrect grammar when read as-is, and I would suggest the other only does when you mentally translate it into English first. Moreover, an understanding of Welsh is not irrelevant - if you aren't used to using and reading bilingual text maybe you would be content to defer to those who are, and reading this sentence (essentially "the the welsh parliament") is grating.
if a vote is needed, do we just let that happen here? If so, strongly in favour of removing the definite article from "the Senedd Cymru" to correct the grammar. Cymro (talk) 12:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regional candidates

[edit]

There are too many candidates and parties for this table to work in its current format. I needs rejigging with the five regions along the top and parties on the side top to bottom.

Here are the full list of SOPN, if I get time later in the week I'll do it, but others may want to first:

NW: https://www.flintshire.gov.uk/en/PDFFiles/Elections-and-Electoral-Registration/Notice-of-elections-2021/Senedd-SOPN-and-NOP-North-Wales-Region-WE.pdf

M&WW: https://www.ceredigion.gov.uk/media/9037/statement-of-persons-nominatedmid-and-west-wales-region.pdf

SWC: https://www.valeofglamorgan.gov.uk/Documents/Our%20Council/Council/Elections/Regional-Senedd-Statement-of-Persons-Nom-and-Notice-of-Poll-eng-cym.pdf

SWE: https://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/fileadmin/documents/Resident/Voting_and_Elections/Senedd_2021/SENEDD_-_STATEMENT_OF_PERSONS_NOMINATED_AND_NOTICE_OF_POLL_-_SOUTH_WALES_EAST_REGION.pdf

SWW: https://www.swansea.gov.uk/media/39301/Statement-as-to-Persons-Nominated-Notice-of-Poll--Situation-of-Polling-Stations-Regional/pdf/SATPN_NOP_and_Situation_of_Polling_Stations_-_Regional.pdf

This is what I'm thinking

Caption text
Mid and West Wales North Wales South Wales Central South Wales East South Wales West
Welsh Labour Eluned Morgan
Joyce Watson
Helen Taylor
Ben Gwalchmai		 Example Example Example Example
Plaid Cymru Cefin Campbell
Helen Mary Jones
Elwyn Vaughan
Cris Tomos		 Example Example Example Example
Welsh Conservatives Example Example Example Example Example
Welsh Liberal Democrats Jane Dodds
William Powell,
Alistair Cameron
Stephen Churchman
Cadan ap Tomos
Alison Alexader		 Example Example Example Example
Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party Victoria Mills
Ray Wood
David Pugh
John Pugh
Bryan Craven
Sara Canning		 Example Example Example Example
Reform Example Example Example Example Example
UKIP Example Example Example Example Example
Gwlad Example Example Example Example Example
Green Example Example Example Example Example
Propel Example Example Example Example Example
Freedom Alliance Example Example Example Example Example
Communists Louisa Cannon
Catrin Ashton
Graham Morgan
David Wood		 Example Example Rob Griffiths
Bob Davenport
Glenn Stephen Eynon
Irene Green		 Example
TUSC Carys Philips Example Example Example Example
Christian Example Example Example Example Example
No more lockdowns Example Example Example Example Example
Workers Party Example Example Example Example Example
Llais Gwynedd Example Example Example Example Example
Independents Example Michelle Brown Example Example Example

Kalamikid (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You say the current table has too many parties and candidates, well surely this change would make the problem worse? We don't need to have every single non-notable party and their candidates listed. One way system (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting this discussion. I was going to be WP:BOLD and move the candidate boxes to a separate article. I really think it's not that constructive to have such a clunking great box in the middle of this article anyway. We may need to discuss if these boxes are actually required: the candidates are listed in their own articles, why do we need these summaries? doktorb wordsdeeds 16:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree that we shouldn't list all candidates from all parties on this page, only notable ones. It's a good way of seeing all the main candidates that could win seats on the list vote on the main election article. But it's good enough that all the details from minor parties are on the regions pages. Cwmcafit (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cwmcafit, yes I agree with that. Currently the parties listed on this page (2021 Senedd election) are the only real notable ones, parties like the Communist Party are non-notable and on this page their candidates should go in the 'Others and independents' column. One way system (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One way system I menat to say currently there are too many for the table to read left to right. I think it would be a massive shame for an encyclopaedia to only show some of the candidates.Kalamikid (talk) 06:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I dont understand what you're trying to say here, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You're saying the table has too many parties on it, but you also want to add all the non-notable parties onto it as well? I know that you want to add the candidates of your Communist Party to the list, but I'm afraid the Communist Party is a non-notable party in this election and its candidates should always go in the 'Others and independents' column. One way system (talk) 06:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Non-notable" does not mean what you want it to. If a party has an article on Wikipedia, they are accepted as passing WP:GNG and therefore are notable. What you mean is that they have no chance of winning a seat, and whilst that's technically WP:CRYSTAL, you are 99.9% certain to be right, and from here we might have an impasse. For me, the question is, do we need two great chunking big candidate boxes in the middle of an election article? Which parties should be named and included and what-not is secondary. I still think that this should be tackled first. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is how its always done for the Senedd election articles. Candidates are listed on the election articles pages so voters can see who they can vote for. What on earth do you mean by "non-notable does not mean what you want it to"? By all accounts the Communist Party is non-notable in this election, seeing as it is polling much less than 1%, won only 0.2% of the vote in the last election, has never had an MS elected and has never received more than 0.4% of votes in a Senedd election. It's not even included in opinion polling in its own right. When another user tried to create a whole separate column for the Communist Party candidates, User:Helper201 removed it for the same reasons, that it is a non-notable party in this election. For you to suggest that I am somehow falsely portraying this party as non-notable is bordering on the bizarre. I suppose you think that the Monster Raving Loony Party, which received three times the amount of votes the Communist Party got in 2016 (0.6% compared to 0.2%), is a 'notable' party as well? One way system (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please don't get me wrong. I have nominated dozens of political party articles for deletion and have had many successes. I think we agree on what "notable" means in the real world - and no, the Communist Party is not, and by some measure the OMRLP is not. But I've found that editors who come to my AfD discussions feel, in some cases, that all political parties are inherently notable, and that by passing WP:GNG, they are notable in the real world and on Wikipedia. Now I happen to disagree. And I agree with you that certain parties have no chance of winning elections to Senedd Cymru this year. However "notable" in Wikipedia terms means that the political party has an article, and that article is sourced and cited. We can't be seen to exclude political parties from articles like this, on the grounds that we might be seen as biased or prejudiced. Again, it's not really a stance I agree with. My view is we shouldn't have candidate boxes in the middle of articles, and that we should be a lot tighter with inclusion/exclusion of political parties more generally. But maybe we're drifting off the main point here. doktorb wordsdeeds 09:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that the original poster said that the table had too many parties on it. Well if that's a problem adding more parties won't make it better, it will make it worse, and there's no need to add all these minor parties when there is already the 'Others and independents' column for them to go in. They're not being excluded from this article at all, just put in the others column to save space. Having the candidate boxes as they currently are in the article means that no party is excluded and that the article continues to follow long-established convention of listing party candidates on the election page.
Also, it seems to me that that criteria for establishing the notability of parties is specific to the creation of wiki articles for such parties, not about their inclusion on election pages. In other words, my understanding would be that the GNG criteria is there to establish whether a party is notable enough to have a stand-alone article, not to establish whether they are notable enough to have all their candidates listed on an election page. My personal opinion is that if we are only going to include the 'notable' parties on the candidates list, we should only include the parties that were invited to the election debates, as that already gives us an existing guideline for which parties are the notable ones. Then we can re-use the criteria that the authorities used to establish which parties were noteworthy enough to be included on the debates. One way system (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'thing' the original poster (me) was trying to state was there were too many parties in the table for it to run left to right with the political parties. The tables in the 1999, 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2016 pages all have the tables laid out differently. They also include all the parties and all the candidates. As a result, by consulting Wikipedia I am able to learn that The Rev. Christopher Davies stood for Cymru Annibynnol and Sura Altikriti stood under the banner Vote No 2 Stop the War. Both of which failed miserably in their attempt, but both were candidates so should be recorded as such. I honestly can't believe there are people here arguing that we shouldn't include all the candidates. Regards KalamiKid (who for the record is most definitely not a communist!) Kalamikid (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, Mr 'most definitely not a communist' Kalamikid, no one is arguing that we shouldn't include all the candidates, as I've already said. All candidates are currently included, as the minor party candidates go in the 'others and independents' column. In any case, the previous election pages which had regional tables including the more minor parties in the lead up to the election (some only provided such tables after the election results were announced) only included about 10 or so parties. You are proposing one massive table with at least 18 parties on it. One way system (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've just checked and we could be looking at a table that is not accessible to mobile users or to text-to-speech users if we insist on carrying on as before. Let's look at South Wales East: their list ballot has Abolish, Communist, Conservative, Gwlad, No Lockdowns, PC, Propel, Reform, UKIP, Green, Labour, LD and TUSC. That's 13 columns if treated separately, or seven/eight with oversized 'other' boxes listing candidates who, with the best will in the world, are unlikely to be elected. I think this year's ballot papers have 'broken' the format of these tables. We may have to look at other ways to display the regional candidates. doktorb wordsdeeds 03:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well One way system I think my proposed way of displaying them is better, but I won't go further than that. Fancy making yourself useful? The SOPN are above and right now I don't have time to copy and paste - could you make a start? Kalamikid (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well no because I don't agree with formatting it that way. One way system (talk) 18:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One way system Could you make a start by adding the candidates to the current table I meant? Kalamikid (talk) 11:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2021 Senedd election article

[edit]

Can we establish a results article for the 2021 Senedd election similar to the Results of the 2019 United Kingdom general election article so we can one place to view the breakdown of results both locally and regionally thoughtout Wales. (MOTORAL1987 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I've started one at Draft:Results of the 2021 Senedd election, and I will work on it during the week. Feel free to help as well if you want. Best, PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Someone vandalised the infobox to make Labour as the only party running, please someone change this back as it won't let me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 02:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the person who changed it back https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:EmilePersaud 02:17, 8 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud (talk • contribs) [reply]

Results for all parties/candidates?

[edit]

Is someone looking to put in the vote counts for all the parties & candidates? I.e., adding all the parties that didn't win seats? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number of parties in infobox

[edit]

There are currently four parties in the infobox (Labour, Conservative, Plaid, Lib Dem). This kind of makes sense as the only four parties to get seats, but the fact that the Lib Dems actually came behind the Greens in vote share makes me think another of these two options may be better:

1) Only include the "big three" parties (Labour, Conservative, Plaid). Advantage of that: only uses one row. 2) Include biggest six parties- adding the Greens and ATWA. This would include every party that got at least 3% of the list vote. Advantage of that: provides more information handily.

The current layout is okay, but I think if it were up to me I'd just include the top three parties, and remove the Lib Dems from the box. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General consensus is - parties with at least 5% of the vote; or parties with seats in the assembly/parliament. Excluding one party with elected members in Senedd might give an inaccurate impression of the actual result. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is established consensus, and common sense, that parties in infoboxes are ordered by how many seats they won. Elections are about winning seats, after all! So, while it may be something to note in the article text that the Greens got more votes, it has no bearing on the infobox, because they didn't win any seats and the LibDems did. In other words, there is no problem needing solving here. Bondegezou (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Party vote share changes since previous election

[edit]

We don't have anywhere in the Results something showing how party vote shares have changed since the previous election. This is shown in the infobox, but only for the top 4 parties and, anyway, information in the infobox should only repeat what is in the article to satisfy WP:MOSINFOBOX. That is, if it's shown in the infobox, it should be shown in the article.

I am loath to complicate the current main Results table, so anyone have ideas how best to address this? Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results section

[edit]

For the Results section can someone please create a diving line or highlight/distinguish the party's that won seats vs those that didn't? This is done on other results pages so people can quickly and easily distinguish which parties won seats and which didn't, as seen by the parties divided by the grey dividing line here - 2018 Bavarian state election#Election result. Helper201 (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think a table like the one I made at Results of the 2021 Scottish Parliament election would work better than Template:Election results, as it can show changes in seats, and has a dividing line as mentioned above. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We only use a dividing line in tables of elections whose system use a hard threshold in which parties can only win seats by getting above it. In MMP systems, parties get seats in constituencies as well. Sometimes, a party that otherwise failed the threshold get seats through them, while another that got more votes but no consistencies seats and also failed the threshold has zero seats. Tables can thus have parties with seats interwined with parties without, which is why we don't use the diving line.--Aréat (talk) 19:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as Aréat says, lines should not be used in cases where there isn't a direct relationship between national vote share and seats won, as it may mean having to mis-order parties to get them above such a line. And then if there is a direct relationship, all the parties winning seats are at the top, so it kind of becomes redundant. Number 57 21:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks both for the advice. PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 21:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Results

[edit]

I've attached here the spreadsheet which I used to calculate the overall results for the election. I should note that the official results released by the Senedd does not provide the following information:

  • Rejected votes for Newport East and Newport West constituencies (if any of you find information on that, please do include it.)
  • Registered voters in the constituencies of Aberavon and Blaenau Gwent, to which I've resorted on getting the information from here and here, respectively

The spreadsheet Kirill.alx (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill.alx: One small error: The electorate for the Mid & West Wales regional constituency is wrong (it is 452256 not 452246). Also, I am surprised by the difference in electorate between the two sets of votes. I am not aware that there are any different voting qualifications for the two sets of elections, and the regional constituencies are a combination of single-seat constituencies. Should they not match? Number 57 15:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well you're not alone in that question. That's what I originally thought when I was in the middle of plugging in the final missing electorate numbers from the two constituencies but it soon became clear that the total didn't match up. I'm sure it has to be matched up. And I'll update the error but do you mind if you can double check whether the numbers I've plotted in the spreadsheet for the Greens, Abolish the Welsh Assembly, UKIP, Reform UK, Gwlad, Freedom Alliance and Christian Party are right? Seems to me that it definitely did not tally up to the figures that the BBC had for these parties. Kirill.alx (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill.alx: Will have a look later – are you talking about the regional or constituency figures? There is a similar problem with the London Assembly results – the two electorates should be identical as there was a single voter roll for all three votes (I was a poll clerk in that election). Number 57 16:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: All constituency figures except for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly. Seems like I've figured out that the Christian Party contested in both so I need to double check again the figures. As for the London Assembly, I gathered all the information that was provided by the London Elects under the results they've given separately for both the constituency and regional figures. I'll double check that again and put the spreadsheet on that page for double checking. Apologies in the first place for any errors committed. Kirill.alx (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Addendum: Seems like the voter roll figures are the same. Thought I had put it differently. Kirill.alx (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yeah, sorry, my mistake... Number 57 16:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirill.alx: Looking at your figures vs the BBC's and the ones on the Senedd website, the BBC's figure for Abolish in the regional vote looks wrong, as does their total for other parties in the constituency vote. I can't see any errors in your compilation, except the Green/Christian Party one, which you seem to have highlighted – are you going to correct this? Number 57 17:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that appears to be an error on the Sendedd site as Griffin is a Green Party candidate here.... Number 57 17:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: Yeah I was going to say that. Seems like an error on their part which explains my confusion on the Green figures. I will correct the figures accordingly Kirill.alx (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have complete the votes of Newport East (Senedd Cymru constituency) (Newport-East-election-2021), Newport West (Senedd Cymru constituency) (Newport-West-election-2021), Torfaen (Senedd Cymru constituency) (2021-Senedd-Cymru-Torfaen-Constituency.pdf] and Swansea West (Senedd Cymru constituency) (Swansea-West-constituency-result-2021).--Dragonlord73 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abolish the Welsh Assembly regional list votes: Mid and West Wales (Senedd Cymru electoral region) 8073, North Wales (Senedd Cymru electoral region) 7960, South Wales East (Senedd Cymru electoral region) 9995, South Wales Central (Senedd Cymru electoral region) 8396, South Wales West (Senedd Cymru electoral region) 6975, total 41399 (and not 34424).--Dragonlord73 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Freedom Alliance Constituency votes: Ceredigion (Senedd Cymru constituency) 305, Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Senedd Cymru constituency) 152, Alyn and Deeside (Senedd Cymru constituency) 208, Monmouth (Senedd Cymru constituency) 181, Newport East (Senedd Cymru constituency) 161, Newport West (Senedd Cymru constituency) 228, Torfaen (Senedd Cymru constituency) 522, Cardiff Central (Senedd Cymru constituency) 156, Cardiff North (Senedd Cymru constituency) 150, Cardiff South and Penarth (Senedd Cymru constituency) 273, Rhondda (Senedd Cymru constituency) 291, Vale of Glamorgan (Senedd Cymru constituency) 226 and Swansea West (Senedd Cymru constituency) 295, total 3148 votes.--Dragonlord73 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragonlord73: The results on the Senedd website for South Wales West do not include Abolish and the table in the constituency article is unsourced. Number 57 20:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:Maybe they have made a mistake, look at Gower-constituency-result-2021 at South Wales West Region Gower Constituency 2021 (PDF), Swansea-East-constituency-result-2021 at South Wales West Region Swansea East Constituency 2021 (PDF) and Swansea-West-constituency-result-2021 at South Wales West Region Swansea West Constituency 2021 (PDF). They listed Abolish the Welsh Assembly in the region South Wales West. PS:Look at declaration-of-result-neath-2021.pdf and statement-of-local-totals-aberavon-south-wales-west-region-6-may-2021.pdf too. --Dragonlord73 (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|@Number 57:Now i have found the result for South Wales West at South Wales West Electoral Region Result 2021 at South Wales West Electoral Region Result 2021 (PDF), this is the source. --Dragonlord73 (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pinging Kirill.alx for info. Number 57 21:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me that the Senedd was negligent in regards to their figures before they published it. Nonetheless, thank you to @Dragonlord73: for finding the sources to the figures. Wholeheartedly appreciate it for finding the right figures and I will accordingly reverse the figures I've made for Abolish and FA - Kirill.alx (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral System section

[edit]

There is a paragraph which says, "Under the Wales Act 2014, a candidate is allowed to stand in both a constituency and a regional list. However, holding a dual mandate with the House of Commons is illegal, meaning a Member of the Senedd cannot also be an MP." The word However taken with the content of the two sentences implies that a candidate can be elected as both a constituency and a regional list member, ie end up with two seats. This is not correct. Could someone who knows please change this so that a) the procedure if a candidate 'wins' in both elections is described and b) the two sentences are separated - no 'however' - so there is no longer an implication that there is any analogy between the two. 92.16.168.45 (talk) 07:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Senedd_election&oldid=1215971494"