Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 8:40:58 GMT
It has been many years now that Britain has had a Register of Political Parties, created in response to the 'spoiler' candidates of the 1990s who were able to use names similar to established parties on ballot papers. As briefly touched on in another thread, a flurry of independents and spurious candidates in the 'peak' of byelection fever in the 80s and 90s took advantage of the free mail-out opportunities to stand as candidates barely disguising the fact that they just wanted to advertise their businesses or The Daily Sport.
As I said in another thread, the difference between pre- and post-register eras seem to be one of professionalism. Gone are the chancers, odd-balls and amateur politicos. The need to be Registered to get your message across in the form of a ballot paper description has all but killed off the advertisers, the silly novelty, the one-off protesters.
Over on the thread I maintain of new additions to the Register, mention has been occasionally made of the downside and unintended consequences. Having allowed "Remember Lee Rigby" on the ballot paper in Wales, the Electoral Commission took to reviewing its processes and began deep-cleaning the Register of anything which might cause offence. The English Democrats took the Commission to Court; For Britain had to amend its name. From being created to avoid "Literal Democrats" and "Conversatives", the Register has developed into a different beast. This doesn't always go down well.
Lewisham East has a by-election shortly. Its ballot paper has the highest number of Registered parties ever recorded. The distance from Christchurch or Eastleigh at the peak of the 'amateur eccentricity' seems vast. Militant in Liverpool Walton's by-election may not have been permitted to register a ballot paper description containing the word "Labour" had the system been in place then: would this be seen as a good use of the regulations?
What say the Forum? Having the Register has put paid to some bad practices while seemingly only allowing a certain 'type' of candidate to put themselves forward for election. Is the age of Registration a good one to live in?
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 24, 2018 9:13:16 GMT
What about only permitting people to stand in their own original full name (adding nothing, omitting nothing and no shortening) as registered on their birth certificate and/or as amended by a formal Deed Poll made at least 14-months before an election (to obviate special changes made for the election)?
Drop the political or any other reference on the ballot. It is merely the standing of a person as a candidate. Make the parties work and the electors work to find out who and what those persons represent. This is a process for grown-ups and if an adult is to be permitted a vote, surely it may be expected that they take enough interest to find out who 'their man' is by name or to survey the runners and riders with at least a cursory interest?
Are we suggesting that the electorate is so tired, so bored, so stupid and so lacking in ability to understand that it must be aided in even this simple choice by being spoon fed with nick names, 'better known as' and full descriptions of affiliations before it can function? If so, let us give up democracy and participatory politics as a busted flush.
Go back to just plain real names of real people and nothing else at all. Stop registering and sifting party names. As there is nothing on the ballot it will be down to personal and party activity to get the message out and a lone voice pretending to be a Literal Democrat or Consersative or Real Labour will have to contact every elector and message them and that is unlikely to be effective or possible.
It is so simple. Just restrict the ballot to names.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 24, 2018 9:29:18 GMT
Say what you like about her premiership, Margaret Hilda Roberts was a reasonable MP for Finchley. Don't know who that creepy Thatcher bloke who kept hanging around her was.
|
|
polupolu
Lib Dem
Liberal (Democrat). Socially Liberal, Economically Keynesian.
Posts: 1,261
|
Post by polupolu on May 24, 2018 9:44:15 GMT
It is so simple. Just restrict the ballot to names. I find this an amusing idea. However one drawback you may not have considered: you would probably get a name recognition skew. Anyone who happens to share a name with a celebrity, or happens to be a celebrity would get an advantage. Imagine the consequences...  |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on May 24, 2018 9:52:51 GMT
It is so simple. Just restrict the ballot to names. I find this an amusing idea. However one drawback you may not have considered: you would probably get a name recognition skew. Anyone who happens to share a name with a celebrity, or happens to be a celebrity would get an advantage. Imagine the consequences... What is amusing about it? It is simple and obvious and is a cure for everything. No stupid tag lines for idiots, self publicists and spoilers. I don't really see the HOC packed with new MPs named Timberlake and Clooney do you? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 10:28:26 GMT
It is probably now worth mentioning that when Roy Jenkins ran to become the Social Democratic MP for Glasgow Hillhead in the 1982 by-election, one of his opponents was a 'Social Democrat'... with the name 'Roy Harold Jenkins'. So getting rid of party names on the ballot wouldn't help at all, and that's not even getting in to the other issues with the idea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 24, 2018 10:38:04 GMT
It is probably now worth mentioning that when Roy Jenkins ran to become the Social Democratic MP for Glasgow Hillhead in the 1982 by-election, one of his opponents was a 'Social Democrat'... with the name 'Roy Harold Jenkins'. So getting rid of party names on the ballot wouldn't help at all, and that's not even getting in to the other issues with the idea. Roy Harold Jenkins had been known until the start of that election as Douglas Parkin, and had a grudge against Roy Harris Jenkins because he was in a different party also called 'Social Democratic Party' that had been founded two years before the better-known one. So not a particularly good example. Then there was Mr Margaret Thatcher (aka Colin Hanoman) who was not allowed to stand in Finchley in 1983. |
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,729
|
Post by Chris from Brum on May 24, 2018 10:51:29 GMT
It's good that deliberate attempts at deception have been ruled out. The name of Richard Huggett will long be infamous in Lib Dem history for the over 10,000 votes he polled in the Euro election of 1994 in Devon as a "Literal Democrat", when the real Lib Dem polled only 700 votes fewer than the winning Tory. Less well-remembered is his stunt in 1997 in the General Election in Winchester, when he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament" despite having nothing whatsoever to do with the party. This is the election that Mark Oaten won by just 2 votes, and which was subsequently rerun due to a challenge by Gerry "Sore Loser" Malone over disallowed ballots. But Huggett took 640 votes. If they had gone, as might be surmised with some justification, to Oaten, then Malone would have failed in his challenge. And been spared the subsequent humiliation of losing the byelection by 21,000 votes!
However, I don't see that labels like "Independent Conservative" and "Independent Labour" really mislead the public. The differentiation from the official candidate is already clear from the name.
|
|
|
|
Post by IceAgeComing on May 24, 2018 10:57:52 GMT
What about only permitting people to stand in their own original full name (adding nothing, omitting nothing and no shortening) as registered on their birth certificate and/or as amended by a formal Deed Poll made at least 14-months before an election (to obviate special changes made for the election)? In the context of Scotland the latter part of this makes no sense since there has never been any requirement to go through the Deed Poll process to change your name in Scots Law. In Scotland you can just change your name and ; there is a process to register that name change that you can do if you want but the onus is on the State to prove that you are changing your name to defraud (the only factor they can consider) but you don't legally need to: for most official purposes provided that you can provide proof that you have changed your name and that you haven't changed it to defraud or deceive then legally they have to accept your name change. That's how a friend of mine changed her name from her birth name to the one that everyone has used since she was two (a similar but shortened name: her birth name was a long, hyphenated thing and she's using a shorter version): its on all of her official documents bar her Birth Certificate including her passport and I believe that she did it through that process - might have been a statutory declaration (which is basically the same as the above but makes it easier to provide proof to banks or other similar institutions) but it certainly wasn't Deed Poll because that's what you do in England, not Scotland. There's also the fact that it excludes married people who wish to change their surname upon marriage (who don't need to go through Deed Poll) but I'd assume that you probably know that already and wouldn't want married women to need to run using their maiden name. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 24, 2018 11:02:18 GMT
There is no requirement in England and Wales to use a deed poll to change your name: you are allowed to use any name you want, provided it is not for the purposes of fraud.
A deed poll is a unilateral legal instrument that simply records the fact of a change of name, which might be useful to prove you have changed it.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on May 24, 2018 11:03:33 GMT
It has been many years now that Britain has had a Register of Political Parties, created in response to the 'spoiler' candidates of the 1990s who were able to use names similar to established parties on ballot papers. As briefly touched on in another thread, a flurry of independents and spurious candidates in the 'peak' of byelection fever in the 80s and 90s took advantage of the free mail-out opportunities to stand as candidates barely disguising the fact that they just wanted to advertise their businesses or The Daily Sport. As I said in another thread, the difference between pre- and post-register eras seem to be one of professionalism. Gone are the chancers, odd-balls and amateur politicos. The need to be Registered to get your message across in the form of a ballot paper description has all but killed off the advertisers, the silly novelty, the one-off protesters. I don't think registration has stopped any of those things. It allowed the Don't Cook Party and the Miss Great Britain Party, and it allowed the Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog. If you want cranks, it even allowed "nine eleven was an inside job". In Lewisham East, several candidates do not look particularly "professional" in spite of representing registered parties. I think some sort of registration was a sensible response to the antics of the likes of Richard Huggett and the fake Labour candidate in Slough in 1992. I do think there's a case that the Electoral Commission has gone too far in policing descriptions, though to be honest I'm not terribly keen on parties using registered descriptions which bear no relation to their actual names; that "By Election Protest" candidate in Batley & Spen, who was really representing a far right party who'd registered that as a description, was a bit off in my view. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 11:05:39 GMT
It has been many years now that Britain has had a Register of Political Parties, created in response to the 'spoiler' candidates of the 1990s who were able to use names similar to established parties on ballot papers. As briefly touched on in another thread, a flurry of independents and spurious candidates in the 'peak' of byelection fever in the 80s and 90s took advantage of the free mail-out opportunities to stand as candidates barely disguising the fact that they just wanted to advertise their businesses or The Daily Sport. As I said in another thread, the difference between pre- and post-register eras seem to be one of professionalism. Gone are the chancers, odd-balls and amateur politicos. The need to be Registered to get your message across in the form of a ballot paper description has all but killed off the advertisers, the silly novelty, the one-off protesters. I don't think registration has stopped any of those things. It allowed the Don't Cook Party and the Miss Great Britain Party, and it allowed the Al-Zebabist Nation of Ooog. If you want cranks, it even allowed "nine eleven was an inside job". In Lewisham East, several candidates do not look particularly "professional" in spite of representing registered parties. I think some sort of registration was a sensible response to the antics of the likes of Richard Huggett and the fake Labour candidate in Slough in 1992. I do think there's a case that the Electoral Commission has gone too far in policing descriptions, though to be honest I'm not terribly keen on parties using registered descriptions which bear no relation to their actual names; that "By Election Protest" candidate in Batley & Spen, who was really representing a far right party who'd registered that as a description, was a bit off in my view. Fair points. I'd forgotten about "nine eleven", blimey. If you're a determined crank, you're going to crank regardless I suppose! That final point has been brought up on the Registration thread, I think Tim most recently. If a ballot paper description doesn't mention the party to which it belongs, does that not have the potential to mislead voters? A good question!. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 24, 2018 12:31:47 GMT
That final point has been brought up on the Registration thread, I think Tim most recently. If a ballot paper description doesn't mention the party to which it belongs, does that not have the potential to mislead voters? A good question!. That could be addressed if it was required that the ballot paper had to include the registered party name along with the description. "Camberwick Focus Team - Liberal Democrat" "Strong and Steady - Conservative Party" "The Common Good - The Green Party" "A Better Future - The Labour Party" "Britain Togather - UKIP"
A nagging thought suggests there are parties called something similar to "Common Good" and "Britain Together".
One thing I'd do is relax the registration and reporting requirements for groups that only contest in a single district council so "Chigley Residents" aren't forced to register and report as an English party just to contest Trumpton District Council elections.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 24, 2018 12:57:30 GMT
I have always thought that the restrictions on names of political parties are too tight. I completely reject the original premise which was the reason why the law was introduced in the first place. The solution to the "Literal Democrat" "problem" (not that I accept that it was a problem in the first place) is for voters to bother to read the list of candidates nominated, or to bother to read the ballot paper, and in doing so, to discover that there are two or more candidates with similar descriptions.
One problem which I became aware of at an early stage after the law was enacted was that the registration of the Communist Party of Britain provided an excuse for the Communist Party of Great Britain not to be allowed to be registered. That led me briefly to think that the CPB *was* the CPGB. The legislation had caused the very confusion which it had intended to avoid.
There are too many different descriptions allowed - 4 or 5 would be sufficient.
I would happily go back to the former system of having no registration of party names, and go back to the free-for-all which existed before. However, it should also be remembered that the registration of political parties was also done for the purpose of regulating expenditure and funding - which is a completely different kettle of ballgames.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on May 24, 2018 17:46:27 GMT
I must point out that in order to register a party you have to pay a £150 registration fee every year.
Also, there are lesser known cases of party confusion I should draw to your attention which also justify the Register of Political Parties. In February 1974, Alan Lomas described himself as the "Official Liberal Party Candidate" when standing for Islington South & Finsbury even though he had been expelled from the actual Liberal Party several years earlier. The Liberals had to go to the High Court to stop this impersonation. And Nigel Furness described himself as "Official Hove Conservative" when standing in Hove, which helped him get his deposit returned.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 24, 2018 18:25:21 GMT
I must point out that in order to register a party you have to pay a £150 registration fee every year. Also, there are lesser known cases of party confusion I should draw to your attention which also justify the Register of Political Parties. In February 1974, Alan Lomas described himself as the "Official Liberal Party Candidate" when standing for Islington South & Finsbury even though he had been expelled from the actual Liberal Party several years earlier. The Liberals had to go to the High Court to stop this impersonation. And Nigel Furness described himself as "Official Hove Conservative" when standing in Hove, which helped him get his deposit returned. The fee is an initial £150 and then £25 to renew each year thereafter. I do not accept the premise that there was any basis for an action to prevent the candidacies or descriptions of the two cases you mention. In those days, parties were not registered and were therefore not legal entities for the purpose of having protected party names. The "description" thingy on the nomination paper is for the description of the candidate, according to what the candidate decides; there was no business of the Returning Officer to connect that with any parties or organisations. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 24, 2018 19:14:56 GMT
In 1970 Douglas Hurd manned a Bexley polling station armed with a placard advising folk which Edward Heath they should vote for. Edward James Robert Lambert Heath had changed his name for the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 24, 2018 19:19:57 GMT
In 1970 Douglas Hurd manned a Bexley polling station armed with a placard advising folk which Edward Heath they should vote for. Edward James Robert Lambert Heath had changed his name for the election. He was originally James Robert Lambert, but put an 'Edward' on the front and a 'Heath' on the end. |
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on May 24, 2018 19:29:35 GMT
In 1970 Douglas Hurd manned a Bexley polling station armed with a placard advising folk which Edward Heath they should vote for. Edward James Robert Lambert Heath had changed his name for the election. He was originally James Robert Lambert, but put an 'Edward' on the front and a 'Heath' on the end. You'll have seen his description in the Times Guide...came across his equivalent (bar name change) for last year's election:- www.crowdfunder.co.uk/SnapElecPlan |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2018 19:59:32 GMT
He was originally James Robert Lambert, but put an 'Edward' on the front and a 'Heath' on the end. You'll have seen his description in the Times Guide...came across his equivalent (bar name change) for last year's election:- www.crowdfunder.co.uk/SnapElecPlanOh that's so sweet. |
|
