|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 12, 2021 14:24:27 GMT
Yes, Labour candidates who have no chance of winning should definately be prevented from standing.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2021 14:28:51 GMT
Yes, Labour candidates who have no chance of winning should definately be prevented from standing.
If you want to be a partisan twat in public no-one's going to stop you. Yes, the same rules should apply to all candidates in all parties. Next inane point from you? Or is there a limit to your complete idiocy?
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 12, 2021 14:46:28 GMT
Yes, Labour candidates who have no chance of winning should definately be prevented from standing.
If you want to be a partisan twat in public no-one's going to stop you. Yes, the same rules should apply to all candidates in all parties. Next inane point from you? Or is there a limit to your complete idiocy?
I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter.
I look forward to your next insult.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 12, 2021 14:51:57 GMT
There's a mixture of good and bad things in there. I agree that they don't seem to realise the mess of making it too easy to stand without demonstrating any serious effort and they don't even talk about the debacle of huge ballot papers that drive up the spoil rate.
This one seems to have evaded explanatory notes:
"NO-01e – the use of any part of a candidate's forename and/or middle name(s) should, as we believe Parliament intended, be permitted as a commonly used name"
Presumably this is a response to the current mess around candidates who want to drop middle names. It is absurd that e.g. "John Henry Smith" is allowed to have any name he (or rather his agent) likes on the ballot paper except "John Smith" which is usually how best he is known and will likely be described on his literature. It's also not always clear if he can be "Henry Smith" - on more than one occasion I've had to explicitly ask this in briefings. And not all (A)ROs are applying the rules the same way - several London Mayor and Assembly list candidates did not have their middle names on the SOPNs but other ROs refuse to countenance this.
There's concern about when a candidate is their own agent and how they can withhold their address yet use it as the office address. They don't seem to have spotted the problem when the agent is using an office address (sometimes someone else's home that is deemed more secure) but the Notice Of Election Agents goes and publishes their home address. Worse still is that online publication of NOEAs is a very hit and mix affair. In many cases the agent is going out of their way to protect the home address but administrators are blind to this.
"NO-05 – Fully reviewing the processes for the registration of political parties to provide certainty to Returning Officers (ROs) about deadlines for new and amended party descriptions and emblems"
Oh yes yes yes. Some parties have amended their registration details after agents and activists have started filling in nomination paperwork and act as though all candidates are kept in an office cupboard to sign new versions at a moment's notice. Or you get (A)ROs who use changes as an excuse to piss about for ages in formally approving nominations. Locking down the party registration in good time would remove so much stress.
"TT-03 – Legislation should be amended so that all UK bank holidays, including those only observed in devolved nations, apply to all elements of the election and electoral registration processes. This should include timetables for all types of poll."
This makes sense as one solution to the problems though I wonder if the reverse solution of using calendar days in all circumstances would be better. Today is a bank holiday but few will be aware of this (probably a rather high % on this forum though) and it could cause complications with by-elections across Great Britain if everyone forgets this one.
"Review voting arrangements to include: PO-04a – considering the benefits technology could bring 34 PO-04b – hours of poll 35 PO-04c – consider the merits of weekend and early voting"
Technology seems to be about using tablets to mark off the register. There's an obvious potential benefit for subsequent use of the marked register though I wonder if this could also open up the potential to vote at other polling stations at least on a limited scale.
The hours of poll is suggesting looking at a reduction on the basis that postal voting on demand allows alternatives but will be interesting given the crusades in certain quarters against postal voting.
Early voting is definitely worth looking at. Weekend voting raises my hackles about weekend engineering works that can make it harder to get around urban areas to campaign on the day - and both snap and by-elections get called after the engineering timetable is set down (not that they'd respond well to the prospect of the May Day bank holiday weekend being off limits).
"VC-01c – the requirement for ROs to take reasonable steps to begin counting the votes as soon as practicable and within four hours of the close of poll at UK Parliamentary elections [should be reviewed]"
An acknowledgement of the problems that come with structuring things around people getting excited at 3am.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 12, 2021 14:52:49 GMT
As someone who has alot of relatives in Israel, I can safely tell everyone proportion Rep (In the list form of it) is a disaster. What I would personally support is run-off between top 2 candidates in a second round (not the hidious 2nd prefrence). And while it has nothing to due with Westminster, I would support Metro-Mayors in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 12, 2021 14:58:17 GMT
If you want to be a partisan twat in public no-one's going to stop you. Yes, the same rules should apply to all candidates in all parties. Next inane point from you? Or is there a limit to your complete idiocy? I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter. I look forward to your next insult.
The latest idiocy is in your remarks. A candidate who doesn't meet the minimum number of signatures isn't banned from standing. They simply have to demonstrate a base level of support. When we have an electoral system which does not allow votes to be transferred from candidates with minimal support, it is not in the interest of electors to allow ballot papers to present what looks like an equal choice between candidates who are strongly supported and those who in practice do not have any chance of being elected. I would go so far as to say it is actively misleading electors. It is antidemocratic.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 12, 2021 15:02:08 GMT
I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter. I look forward to your next insult.
The latest idiocy is in your remarks. A candidate who doesn't meet the minimum number of signatures isn't banned from standing. They simply have to demonstrate a base level of support. When we have an electoral system which does not allow votes to be transferred from candidates with minimal support, it is not in the interest of electors to allow ballot papers to present what looks like an equal choice between candidates who are strongly supported and those who in practice do not have any chance of being elected. I would go so far as to say it is actively misleading electors. It is antidemocratic. But in practice, many seats both local and national, may come into that category.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Jul 12, 2021 15:07:39 GMT
I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter. To the best of my knowledge about the only proposed new ban on people standing floating about is a ban on people who don't live in Wales from standing for the Welsh Parliament. And I'm not sure of just how far that's got. The existing bans are primarily about limiting candidacies to those involved - so you have to live or work in an area to stand for council or be eligible to vote for Parliament to stand for it and so on. Only the PCC restrictions on criminal records generate much excitement. What is being talked about here is not "banning" anybody from standing. It's about ensuring there are reasonable thresholds for candidates and/or parties to demonstrate they are serious in standing and being entitled to the platform that brings. Giant ballot papers expanded by the presence of umpteen frivolous attention seekers are of no benefit to anyone. Ditto over expanded hustings and media coverage that has to accommodate anyone who stuck a tool over their head and put their hand up. These requirements also benefit serious parties - for example a full slate that requires you to go to even your most hopeless ward to collect signatures means you have put in some effort across the entire authority and that is better for both your party and that ward than if you just filled in a form in an office elsewhere every four years. The Mayor of London election this year was an example of the mess when it is too easy to stand because circumstances required a reduction of the threshold. In normal times it should absolutely not be repeated.
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Jul 12, 2021 15:08:27 GMT
As someone who has alot of relatives in Israel, I can safely tell everyone proportion Rep (In the list form of it) is a disaster. What I would personally support is run-off between top 2 candidates in a second round (not the hidious 2nd prefrence). And while it has nothing to due with Westminster, I would support Metro-Mayors in Scotland. It's more the list form without a threshold. Yet it seems to work well enough in the Netherlands. Perhaps it's more that Israeli political parties appear to be remarkably fluid in character! Other than the religious parties, who have no incentive to change as they almost always end up in government and will vote to kill their granny as long as they receive the necessary bribes from government partners. Who in turn will let them get away with it. I actually wonder if Israel would be even more politically divided under FPTP. Settlers would vote hard right and live together geographically. As do the liberal left in Tel Aviv. Then there's the Haredim who would simply return religious party MK's.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 12, 2021 15:20:32 GMT
I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter. I look forward to your next insult.
The latest idiocy is in your remarks. A candidate who doesn't meet the minimum number of signatures isn't banned from standing. They simply have to demonstrate a base level of support. When we have an electoral system which does not allow votes to be transferred from candidates with minimal support, it is not in the interest of electors to allow ballot papers to present what looks like an equal choice between candidates who are strongly supported and those who in practice do not have any chance of being elected. I would go so far as to say it is actively misleading electors. It is antidemocratic.
I don't believe in having to gather many signatures, maybe 1 moninee and a seconder, my point of view. I believe people have the right to stand. I don't think FPTP is democratic but thats a seperate issue to allowing people to stand and lose.
I stand by position. I will however add that the original Labour and Green candidates would very likely have been as pointless at the time. Times change. I don't believe voters are thick, I believe they understand when someone is likely to lose, and they still vote for them, that's democratic choice.
Currently we need more candidates and more choice as the mainstream parties are all pro-authoritarian, pro-central dictat parties.
Thanks for another insult.
Next one please.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 12, 2021 15:27:56 GMT
I don't believe in banning any candidates, I believe anyone should have the chance to stand for election and be rejected. To me banning any person from standing is the thin end of the wedge; if you ban one person why not any / all candidates that don't agree with A staus quo. It wouldn't have taken much in the last year for people to agree to banning anti-lockdown, anti-mask candidates in my opinion. To me there are too many people in existing parties, who are more interested in their own power nests, rather than what is democratic. Some of them acknowledge this, others pretend it isn't so. Personally I have more respect for former than the latter. To the best of my knowledge about the only proposed new ban on people standing floating about is a ban on people who don't live in Wales from standing for the Welsh Parliament. And I'm not sure of just how far that's got. The existing bans are primarily about limiting candidacies to those involved - so you have to live or work in an area to stand for council or be eligible to vote for Parliament to stand for it and so on. Only the PCC restrictions on criminal records generate much excitement. What is being talked about here is not "banning" anybody from standing. It's about ensuring there are reasonable thresholds for candidates and/or parties to demonstrate they are serious in standing and being entitled to the platform that brings. Giant ballot papers expanded by the presence of umpteen frivolous attention seekers are of no benefit to anyone. Ditto over expanded hustings and media coverage that has to accommodate anyone who stuck a tool over their head and put their hand up. These requirements also benefit serious parties - for example a full slate that requires you to go to even your most hopeless ward to collect signatures means you have put in some effort across the entire authority and that is better for both your party and that ward than if you just filled in a form in an office elsewhere every four years. The Mayor of London election this year was an example of the mess when it is too easy to stand because circumstances required a reduction of the threshold. In normal times it should absolutely not be repeated.
Your position is pro- established parties, pro-big organisations, fine mine is for an individual to stand on any platform, to me that should be a right, if it means long ballot papers, so be it.
Personally I don't trust government with anything anymore. The last year with postponed elections, not democratic. People are wanting to be told. A slightly worse covid, banning parties and elections could be gotten away with, my viewpoint.
This is all about debates on here, I'm happy to disagree with you, well its about debating apart for those who prefer other options.
|
|
|
Post by rcronald on Jul 12, 2021 15:29:55 GMT
As someone who has alot of relatives in Israel, I can safely tell everyone proportion Rep (In the list form of it) is a disaster. What I would personally support is run-off between top 2 candidates in a second round (not the hidious 2nd prefrence). And while it has nothing to due with Westminster, I would support Metro-Mayors in Scotland. It's more the list form without a threshold. Yet it seems to work well enough in the Netherlands. Perhaps it's more that Israeli political parties appear to be remarkably fluid in character! Other than the religious parties, who have no incentive to change as they almost always end up in government and will vote to kill their granny as long as they receive the necessary bribes from government partners. Who in turn will let them get away with it. I actually wonder if Israel would be even more politically divided under FPTP. Settlers would vote hard right and live together geographically. As do the liberal left in Tel Aviv. Then there's the Haredim who would simply return religious party MK's. Israel is heavely segregated in class and religousness, right wing parties would likely win every jewish majority seat that is outside TLV (Not incuding the Nationalist & working class south TLV) and the highly affluent northrn suburbs.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jul 12, 2021 15:32:25 GMT
I think the point is the existing system doesn't prevent frivolous candidates, anyone who wants to stand can get 10 signatures without too much difficulty. It is the deposit that is more of a disincentive to stand for smaller parties than the signature requirement.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jul 12, 2021 16:13:49 GMT
It doesn't say that they should get rid of the need for assentors; it just says that it's an issue the government should consider. Luckily, no government in the foreseeable future would be daft enough to abolish the need for assentors, or abolish the deposit. The deposit has been £500 since 1986. It should be raised to £1,000 and thereafter index-linked.
|
|
|
Post by Daft H'a'porth A'peth A'pith on Jul 13, 2021 5:49:19 GMT
It doesn't say that they should get rid of the need for assentors; it just says that it's an issue the government should consider. Luckily, no government in the foreseeable future would be daft enough to abolish the need for assentors, or abolish the deposit. The deposit has been £500 since 1986. It should be raised to £1,000 and thereafter index-linked.
If you want a deposit, why not £10,000 a seat for parties, after all they have multiple people in them and £500 for individuals standing as Independents. That wouild make for a fairer playing field?
Personally I think no deposit is best. Also a person standing, plus nominator and seconder is all that should be needed. I trust voters to choose between ALL those standing.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jul 13, 2021 8:48:04 GMT
I think the point is the existing system doesn't prevent frivolous candidates, anyone who wants to stand can get 10 signatures without too much difficulty. It is the deposit that is more of a disincentive to stand for smaller parties than the signature requirement. And the deposit is only really a disincentive for serious smaller parties (primarily the Greens), who have to raise the money for large numbers of deposits. It doesn't discourage nominations from genuinely frivolous candidates (e.g. the OMRLP) at all, since they only have a handful of wiling candidates, so only have to raise the money for a handful of deposits.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 13, 2021 8:58:59 GMT
I disagree with them about extending even further the timescales for GEs.
There are times when the country needs a snap GE. I think in Feb 1974 the time from the proclamation summoning a new Parliament to polling day was cut to as little as 20 days (and that was actual days, none of this business about not counting Sundays).
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2021 9:13:26 GMT
I agree on general elections - an elongated timetable does restrict the ability to call an election to resolve a political crisis, and the move in the last decade has made a longer timetable than before. Although from an electoral administrator's point of view I take their point that while the lower turnout local elections happen on a strict timetable set well in advance, the high turnout general elections can be sprung on them with no advance warning.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 13, 2021 9:21:59 GMT
I tend to hold onto my views and opinions quite rigidly and, as David will remember from different versions of both this forum and this particular debate, I have always stood against any restriction to the number of candidates standing for a specific constituency or post.
I accept that, let's use Haltemprice and Howden as one of my go-to examples, there was not an equal chance for all 20-odd candidates to be the next MP. But each of them, even David Icke, has an equal right to make the case for their election. Some of the candidates in Batley and Spen - both by-elections - have views utterly at odds with my own, but I accept we have a system which allows them to make their case. Voters usually decide to choose from the most likely to win every time and usually reject the extremes or niche. That happens naturally, with no quota or restrictions or gatekeeping.
The London Mayoral ballot tablecloth should be seen for what it was: an extreme reaction to very trying times. It was never going to be an ordinary election, and that number of candidates is highly unlikely to be repeated again (as has happened with Haltemprice and Howden incidentally). Once the 'novelty' moves on, it rarely returns.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 13, 2021 9:36:37 GMT
Electoral politics is not like retailing or service industries where the object is to serve the customer's individual needs and every specific preference. It's about a single government for the whole nation. The system should not act to encourage people to split into small electoral blocks - it should do everything it can to discourage and prevent that sort of thing happening.
|
|