|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 13, 2012 12:05:46 GMT
Sir Stuart Bell has sadly died. RIP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 12:09:12 GMT
RIP.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Oct 13, 2012 13:14:41 GMT
I assume that calling that fpr 15/11 might be tricky but nit impossible.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Oct 13, 2012 13:27:28 GMT
No it isn't impossible - Piara Khabra died on 19 June, and the Ealing Southall by-election was held on 19 July.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tangent on Oct 13, 2012 15:45:29 GMT
In Southall, most parties were aware that Khabra was going, and had made preparations and preliminary canvassing before he died. I'm not sure how far that holds here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 13, 2012 16:21:18 GMT
From the point of view of getting a decent turnout 15th November would probably be a better option than December or January.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Oct 13, 2012 16:36:24 GMT
I assume that calling that fpr 15/11 might be tricky but nit impossible. I don't know why you think this. For a by-election to be held on 15 November, the writ has to be issued between 22 and 25 October. I know it's normally convention to wait until after the funeral but that will probably happen fairly soon unless there were unusual circumstances. Even then, Labour didn't bother to wait with Crewe & Nantwich. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 13, 2012 16:52:12 GMT
Even then, Labour didn't bother to wait with Crewe & Nantwich. Not that idiotic trope again. Gwyneth Dunwoody's funeral was deliberately organised several weeks after her death, because she had many relatives overseas and it was difficult to gather the family together. There is no rule linking funerals of deceased MPs to the date of moving the writ; it's just simply happened that way because of timing. If there was a rule it would have been mentioned in the Speaker's Conference of 1973 and it wasn't. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 13, 2012 17:12:24 GMT
Even then, Labour didn't bother to wait with Crewe & Nantwich. Not that idiotic trope again. Gwyneth Dunwoody's funeral was deliberately organised several weeks after her death, because she had many relatives overseas and it was difficult to gather the family together. There is no rule linking funerals of deceased MPs to the date of moving the writ; it's just simply happened that way because of timing. If there was a rule it would have been mentioned in the Speaker's Conference of 1973 and it wasn't. There might not be a rule but it does seem to be generally accepted that the writ should not be moved until after the funeral. Obviously Crewe and Nantwich was an exception for the reasons that you state. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 13, 2012 18:28:47 GMT
The Feltham and Heston vacancy last year was also filled at pretty short notice.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Oct 13, 2012 22:32:44 GMT
Even then, Labour didn't bother to wait with Crewe & Nantwich. Not that idiotic trope again. Gwyneth Dunwoody's funeral was deliberately organised several weeks after her death, because she had many relatives overseas and it was difficult to gather the family together. There is no rule linking funerals of deceased MPs to the date of moving the writ; it's just simply happened that way because of timing. If there was a rule it would have been mentioned in the Speaker's Conference of 1973 and it wasn't. That's why I said "it's normally convention". Believe me, I know the rules on calling by-elections perfectly well. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 13, 2012 22:42:26 GMT
There is no such convention. For it to be a convention there would have to be at least an unofficial agreement, and there isn't.
Nemo me impune lacessit. Here are the shortest gaps between death of a sitting MP and the moving of the writ since 1918:
4 days
Sir Thomas Vansittart Bowater, Bt. (City of London) 28 March - 1 April 1938
6 days
William Kennedy Jones (Hornsey) 20 - 26 October 1921
Sir Donald Macmaster, Bt. (Chertsey) 3 - 9 March 1922
Albert Edward Jacob (Liverpool, East Toxteth) 26 February - 4 March 1929
7 days
William Hutchison (Glasgow, Kelvingrove) 1 - 8 May 1924
8 days
David Henderson Macdonald (Bothwell) 22 - 30 June 1919
Thomas Lowth (Manchester, Ardwick) 26 May - 3 June 1931
Frederick Hall (Normanton) 18 - 26 April 1933
Sir Alexander Nairne Stewart-Sandeman (Middleton and Prestwich) 23 April - 1 May 1940
John Sewell Courtauld (Chichester) 20 - 28 April 1942
Piara Khabra was 9 days, and Derek Fatchett 10; Gwyneth Dunwoody was 13, which is not so out of line with Rachel Squire and Alan Keen who both had writs moved 14 days after their death and no-one complained.
|
|
|
|
Post by erlend on Oct 13, 2012 23:04:18 GMT
To get a context, what are the shortest in non Labour seats in recent decades.
And is it just post 2005 that Labour onea have been sp tight?
It strikes me that ramming it through is more impirtant for a government than for an opposition. Less time for bandwagons!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 13, 2012 23:21:42 GMT
To get a context, what are the shortest in non Labour seats in recent decades. There haven't been that many non-Labour MPs dying, but there was a gap of only 12 days between Bonner Pink's death on 6 May 1984 and the moving of the writ on 18 May, and only 20 days between Eric Forth's death on 17 May 2006 and the moving of the writ on 6 June. Actually it's let up recently. The trend for calling byelections quickly seems to have started for Labour once it took office in 1997, and I'm wondering whether Labour may have noticed in opposition that a lengthy delay just allowed a challenging party to build up a head of steam in campaigning and therefore always had it in mind. George Robertson is the first case where a byelection was definitely rushed, although he had to be made a Peer to do so. Derek Fatchett's death in 1999 occurred just before the European elections. However, the loss of Dunfermline and West Fife in 2006 showed that holding a byelection quickly was not necessarily an advantage to the incumbent party, and after then the approach seems to have changed especially where the public knew that the MP was suffering from a dangerous illness. Gwyneth Dunwoody's death was sudden and the Conservatives the main challengers, but by contrast John MacDougall's health problems were well known and there the writ was left for two months to allow the SNP to tire themselves out. |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Oct 13, 2012 23:27:17 GMT
So assuming that David is correct in the last 70 years the shortest gaps between the death of an MP and the moving of the writ have been 9, 10 and 13 days. Therefore it quite obvious that in the vast, vast majority of cases the writ will not have been moved until after the funeral. Whether you wish to call this a convention is immaterial, there is clearly broad agreement that it is right and proper.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 13, 2012 23:35:56 GMT
So assuming that David is correct in the last 70 years the shortest gaps between the death of an MP and the moving of the writ have been 9, 10 and 13 days. Therefore it quite obvious that in the vast, vast majority of cases the writ will not have been moved until after the funeral. Whether you wish to call this a convention is immaterial, there is clearly broad agreement that it is right and proper. No, because you haven't actually produced any evidence of there being a link between the two events specifically. You need to find some definite link between moving a byelection writ and the funeral of the late Member, not just refer to a coincidence (however frequent) that one usually follows the other. In any event your 70 years is an arbitrary time limit and I didn't say that the particular examples you're quoting were exclusive of others. |
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Oct 14, 2012 8:19:14 GMT
Difficult to see it being anything other than a safe Labour hold.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Oct 14, 2012 12:07:38 GMT
In Barnsley Central the LDs went from 6,394 votes (17.3%) in 2010 to 1,012 votes (4.2%) in the by-election. I think the same type of thing might happen in Middlesbrough where they start off with 6,662 votes (19.9%).
|
|
|
|
Post by marksenior on Oct 14, 2012 13:48:48 GMT
In Barnsley Central the LDs went from 6,394 votes (17.3%) in 2010 to 1,012 votes (4.2%) in the by-election. I think the same type of thing might happen in Middlesbrough where they start off with 6,662 votes (19.9%). I think you will find the LD vote rather more resilient in Middlesbrough than Barnsley especially as it is next to Redcar/Cleveland . |
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Oct 14, 2012 14:24:27 GMT
In Barnsley Central the LDs went from 6,394 votes (17.3%) in 2010 to 1,012 votes (4.2%) in the by-election. I think the same type of thing might happen in Middlesbrough where they start off with 6,662 votes (19.9%). I think you will find the LD vote rather more resilient in Middlesbrough than Barnsley especially as it is next to Redcar/Cleveland . I agree, the LDs will poll about 7% in Middlesbrough as opposed to 4.2% in Barnsley. |
|
