Talk:London Assembly

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

Map[edit]

The constituencies map needs updating - it currently shows 7 Labour and 7 Conservative, rather than 6 and 8 respectively. I think it's Merton & Wandsworth that's wrong (my London geography is less than brilliant ;) Sjorford 17:16, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is, indeed, Merton & Wandsworth; sadly, however, because the image is antialiased, I can't update it myself; I'll ask Morwen.
James F. (talk) 18:22, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Done. Morwen 18:22, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)
... or, of course, I could just procrastinate and let the wonderful Morwen find out for herself :-)
James F. (talk) 04:26, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ordering[edit]

The original ordering, by me, was

Green, Labour, LibDem, Tory

ie alphabetical, but using informal names

Someone later changed those to the formal terms for the parties (Liberal Democrats, Conservative), without noticing the list needed resorting. Morwen 20:09, May 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, that explains the otherwise odd order but ordering by number of seats has other benefits anyway. --VampWillow 20:29, 2004 May 9 (UTC)

Election System[edit]

If you follow the link to the Additional Member System page, the page is about a 'family' of election systems and London uses the Parallel voting branch so the page really should link to there instead. But isn't it referred to as Additional Member System in London? Don't want to make a change just to have it reverted by someone because its confusing. Mattlore (talk) 06:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, London uses AMS. Note how few Conservatives have been elected on the list despite a high vote and you'll see the link. What is "parallel" is that voting for the Mayor has zero effect on the Assembly & vice versa. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see - so it seems to be a MMP system. What had confused me was the lack of overhang leaving the final result weighted in favour of Labour and the Conservatives. Mattlore (talk) 09:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the lack of an overhand has more to do with 44% of the seats being allocated by the list, so it would take a pretty big sweep for one party to get enough constituencies to bring it into effect. There's an inevitable large party bias but that's standard in most systems. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14 seats are elected directly and the other 11 by counting the 25 under modified D'Hondt[1]. However, that said, I am confused why 100,040 votes wasn't enough to get UKIP a seat when Lib Dems got 2 with 150,447 votes.Dan88888 (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is MMP. As the 11 members are elected considering all votes cast overall across London, it is Mixed Member PR (at the city level), not AMS. AMS is used in Scotland and votes there do not leave regions. there is no overall aspect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.205.46 (talk) 07:12, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 5% threshold to qualify for list seats. At most elections one or more parties falls foul of this. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17769428

Powers[edit]

This article needs far more information about exactly what powers the Assembly has. --MacRusgail (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The powers are quite adequately described in the top section. I would add that the content under Stepping stone is relevant to the political ambitions of the individuals mentioned but is otherwise irrelevant to the article's subject. I propose deleting the whole section. Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to the talk page to make the same point @MacRusgail: made in 2008. The article doesn't offer any help to readers to understand the powers of the Assembly -- or of the Mayor. Three months later @Bjenks: disagreed. Sorry Bjenks, I see your disagreement as due to a failure of imagination.
I live in Toronto, Ontario. In Ontario, and other Canadian provinces, municipalities are "creatures of the province". Ontario mayors and municipal councilors have weak powers, at least compared with their opposite numbers in the USA. While they can set property taxes, they can not, for instance, set a sales tax, as was done in NYC.
Further, they don't get the final say, over planning matters. Developers who own property in Ontario municipalities routinely submit development plans to the city they expect to be rejected, with relative confidence that the unelected Ontario Municipal Board, after a very short hearing, will over-ride the municipal decision, and rubber-stamp their plans.
So, Bjenks, that the top section lays out the conditions under which the Assembly can over-ride the mayor is not really helpful, if we don't know how powerful the city government is, as a whole. This article still needs to explain the city's local powers. Geo Swan (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I must check to see whether my imagination has recovered over the past 6½ years :). It seems you have a real concern, GS, but I wonder whether you have followed through citation #1 (Localism Act 2011) as I did, to find this chapter on the powers of UK local authorities. I wonder, too, whether this article is the most appropriate one on which to pin a nicely imagined comparison of Canadian with British statuary parochial powers, and indeed whether it is Wikipedia's proper role to broadly expatiate on such abstruse comparisons. These matters will require more serious investigation, which I promise to undertake when time permits. Bjenks (talk) 01:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the London Assembly (and boroughs) make up a two-tier metropolitan city government system or merely just two different things - the Assembly and the boroughs, with no direct relationship between them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.150.205.46 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on London Assembly. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party switch[edit]

Peter Whittle has quite Ukip - can someone in the know update the graphics and tables? Timrollpickering 15:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of the Assembly section[edit]

There is a sentence here which says, "Terms are for four years, so despite the delayed 2020 election, which was held in 2021, the following election will be in 2024." This is clearly wrong; if terms were for four years then an election in 2021 would be followed by an election in 2025. Please could someone correct or delete this? Tommyboy (talk) 07:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:London_Assembly&oldid=1215972787"