jamie
Top Poster
Posts: 6,888
|
Post by jamie on Jul 28, 2022 18:02:58 GMT
From a couple of weeks ago:
Adam Brook, Grangetown, Redcar and Cleveland - Independent to Labour
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Jul 29, 2022 15:09:42 GMT
Denbighshire, Rhyl South. Jeanette Chamberlain-Jones, Labour to Non aligned.
|
|
|
Post by carolus on Aug 2, 2022 20:14:33 GMT
Bury, Ramsbottom (2023). Spencer Donnelly, Labour to Independent. Tunbridge Wells, Pantiles & St Mark's (2023). Andrew Hickey, Lib Dem to Independent.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 2, 2022 20:53:16 GMT
I'm referring to the former Alliance of Socialist Greens and Green Left (happy to stand corrected if they were not official), and elsewhere to the Alliance for Green Socialism and the like. On the wider point about independents using a descriptor (or indeed not) when actually aligned to a formal party in reality, I was thinking in particular of the "independent Socialists" in Southampton who were of course TUSC when they fancied it, or the pseudo-Independents in the Highlands. The Alliance for Green Socialism are registered as a party. search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP67They do have "Green Socialists" registered as a ballot description, which demonstrates how inconsistently rules about confusing descriptions are applied. Green Left are/were an internal grouping within GPEW. Nowadays, it's mostly a couple of timewasters from Shahrar Ali's former party and a Facebook group. I view this as analogous to trade mark law, where better known marks effectively get a better scope of protection. The law is there to stop the public being confused, not for internal equity between parties, so it's only reasonable that conservative and labour (to a lesser extent Liberal Democrat and Green) get a better scope of protection than a very minor party like the alliance for green socialism.
|
|
peterl
Green
Monarchic Technocratic Localist
Posts: 8,266
|
Post by peterl on Aug 2, 2022 21:00:41 GMT
The Alliance for Green Socialism are registered as a party. search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP67They do have "Green Socialists" registered as a ballot description, which demonstrates how inconsistently rules about confusing descriptions are applied. Green Left are/were an internal grouping within GPEW. Nowadays, it's mostly a couple of timewasters from Shahrar Ali's former party and a Facebook group. I view this as analogous to trade mark law, where better known marks effectively get a better scope of protection. The law is there to stop the public being confused, not for internal equity between parties, so it's only reasonable that conservative and labour (to a lesser extent Liberal Democrat and Green) get a better scope of protection than a very minor party like the alliance for green socialism. And yet there is a Socialist Labour Party.
|
|
|
Post by aargauer on Aug 2, 2022 21:05:23 GMT
I view this as analogous to trade mark law, where better known marks effectively get a better scope of protection. The law is there to stop the public being confused, not for internal equity between parties, so it's only reasonable that conservative and labour (to a lesser extent Liberal Democrat and Green) get a better scope of protection than a very minor party like the alliance for green socialism. And yet there is a Socialist Labour Party. Probably the edge of acceptability. See also the pro EU Conservative party.
|
|
cj
Socialist
These fragments I have shored against my ruins
Posts: 3,282
|
Post by cj on Aug 2, 2022 21:16:13 GMT
I view this as analogous to trade mark law, where better known marks effectively get a better scope of protection. The law is there to stop the public being confused, not for internal equity between parties, so it's only reasonable that conservative and labour (to a lesser extent Liberal Democrat and Green) get a better scope of protection than a very minor party like the alliance for green socialism. And yet there is a Socialist Labour Party. Possibly down to The Socialist Labour Party pre-dating the Electoral Commission and the 1998 Registration of Political Parties Act having been founded in '96 which first addressed this area in law.
|
|
|
Post by owainsutton on Aug 2, 2022 21:28:17 GMT
And yet there is a Socialist Labour Party. Possibly down to The Socialist Labour Party pre-dating the Electoral Commission and the 1998 Registration of Political Parties Act having been founded in '96 which first addressed this area in law. You can apply that same argument to the Literal Democrats.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Aug 2, 2022 21:33:52 GMT
Possibly down to The Socialist Labour Party pre-dating the Electoral Commission and the 1998 Registration of Political Parties Act having been founded in '96 which first addressed this area in law. You can apply that same argument to the Literal Democrats. But there was never a party with that me, just a candidate who used that description
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,234
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 3, 2022 6:24:22 GMT
You can apply that same argument to the Literal Democrats. But there was never a party with that me, just a candidate who used that description The Richard Huggett (spit!) case was one of the reasons why a body to regulate political descriptions and registrations came to be considered necessary.
|
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Aug 3, 2022 8:14:55 GMT
I'm referring to the former Alliance of Socialist Greens and Green Left (happy to stand corrected if they were not official), and elsewhere to the Alliance for Green Socialism and the like. On the wider point about independents using a descriptor (or indeed not) when actually aligned to a formal party in reality, I was thinking in particular of the "independent Socialists" in Southampton who were of course TUSC when they fancied it, or the pseudo-Independents in the Highlands. The Alliance for Green Socialism are registered as a party. search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Registrations/PP67They do have "Green Socialists" registered as a ballot description, which demonstrates how inconsistently rules about confusing descriptions are applied. Green Left are/were an internal grouping within GPEW. Nowadays, it's mostly a couple of timewasters from Shahrar Ali's former party and a Facebook group. Which is Shahrar Ali's former party?
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,789
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 3, 2022 10:43:49 GMT
But there was never a party with that me, just a candidate who used that description The Richard Huggett (spit!) case was one of the reasons why a body to regulate political descriptions and registrations came to be considered necessary. Especially after he pulled the same trick in Winchester come the 1997 GE.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,234
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 3, 2022 11:10:11 GMT
The Richard Huggett (spit!) case was one of the reasons why a body to regulate political descriptions and registrations came to be considered necessary. Especially after he pulled the same trick in Winchester come the 1997 GE. In the GE he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament", while Mark Oaten stood as "Liberal Democrat: Leader Paddy Ashdown", and got 640 votes. Oaten's majority was just 2, but Gerry Malone had the result set aside. In the subsequent by-election Huggett stood as "Literal Democrat Mark Here To Win", this time getting only 59 votes while Oaten had a majority of 21,556. Clearly the electorate had got wise to his attempts at deception.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 3, 2022 11:43:55 GMT
Especially after he pulled the same trick in Winchester come the 1997 GE. In the GE he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament", while Mark Oaten stood as "Liberal Democrat: Leader Paddy Ashdown", and got 640 votes. Oaten's majority was just 2, but Gerry Malone had the result set aside. In the subsequent by-election Huggett stood as "Literal Democrat Mark Here To Win", this time getting only 59 votes while Oaten had a majority of 21,556. Clearly the electorate had got wise to his attempts at deception. The reason why the election petition succeeded, and the by-election was ordered, had nothing to do with the existence of, or number of votes for, any spoiler candidate.
|
|
|
Post by grahammurray on Aug 3, 2022 11:50:43 GMT
In the GE he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament", while Mark Oaten stood as "Liberal Democrat: Leader Paddy Ashdown", and got 640 votes. Oaten's majority was just 2, but Gerry Malone had the result set aside. In the subsequent by-election Huggett stood as "Literal Democrat Mark Here To Win", this time getting only 59 votes while Oaten had a majority of 21,556. Clearly the electorate had got wise to his attempts at deception. The reason why the election petition succeeded, and the by-election was ordered, had nothing to do with the existence of, or number of votes for, any spoiler candidate. No, but the point still stands.
|
|
Chris from Brum
Lib Dem
What I need is a strong drink and a peer group.
Posts: 9,234
Member is Online
|
Post by Chris from Brum on Aug 3, 2022 11:52:24 GMT
In the GE he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament", while Mark Oaten stood as "Liberal Democrat: Leader Paddy Ashdown", and got 640 votes. Oaten's majority was just 2, but Gerry Malone had the result set aside. In the subsequent by-election Huggett stood as "Literal Democrat Mark Here To Win", this time getting only 59 votes while Oaten had a majority of 21,556. Clearly the electorate had got wise to his attempts at deception. The reason why the election petition succeeded, and the by-election was ordered, had nothing to do with the existence of, or number of votes for, any spoiler candidate. I know it didn't, Gerry Malone brought the petition and he had nothing to do with Huggett AFAIK. In fact, had Huggett not stood, Oaten's majority at the GE would likely have been larger, in the low hundreds rather than just 2. But Huggett had a second chance to do mischief; however, his first attempt had been noted and he was largely ignored.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Aug 3, 2022 11:57:17 GMT
I wonder if in the long term, the Liberal Democrat's prospects in Winchester were actually helped by having the by-election and winning by a massive majority, than if they had just won by a few hundred in the general election?
|
|
batman
Labour
Posts: 9,088
Member is Online
|
Post by batman on Aug 3, 2022 12:01:04 GMT
almost certainly yes, and they probably would have held the seat longer still had it not been for Oaten's activities outside politics.
|
|
greenhert
Green
Posts: 7,243
Member is Online
|
Post by greenhert on Aug 3, 2022 13:12:15 GMT
In the GE he stood as "Liberal Democrat Top Choice for Parliament", while Mark Oaten stood as "Liberal Democrat: Leader Paddy Ashdown", and got 640 votes. Oaten's majority was just 2, but Gerry Malone had the result set aside. In the subsequent by-election Huggett stood as "Literal Democrat Mark Here To Win", this time getting only 59 votes while Oaten had a majority of 21,556. Clearly the electorate had got wise to his attempts at deception. The reason why the election petition succeeded, and the by-election was ordered, had nothing to do with the existence of, or number of votes for, any spoiler candidate. In fact an election petition by Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay from 1997 to 2015) on the basis of Richard Huggett's confusing "Literal Democrat" description in the 1994 European Parliament elections was dismissed. That case was also cited when the Registration of Political Parties Act was passed.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 3, 2022 13:28:27 GMT
I wonder if in the long term, the Liberal Democrat's prospects in Winchester were actually helped by having the by-election and winning by a massive majority, than if they had just won by a few hundred in the general election? Hard to say. Going into the 2001 election there were a lot of Conservative associations facing slender Lib Dem majorities who seemed to think all they to do was persuade enough Lib Dems to switch (back) and they'd be home and dry. Instead they usually got much bigger Lib Dem majorities as the MP dug in and would take multiple elections and a big change in the political wind to get out. The reason why the election petition succeeded, and the by-election was ordered, had nothing to do with the existence of, or number of votes for, any spoiler candidate. In fact an election petition by Adrian Sanders (Liberal Democrat MP for Torbay from 1997 to 2015) on the basis of Richard Huggett's confusing "Literal Democrat" description in the 1994 European Parliament elections was dismissed. That case was also cited when the Registration of Political Parties Act was passed. The judgment is available online: Sanders & Anor v Chichester & Anor [1994] EWHC 9 (QB) www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1994/9.htmlIt's a classic "this person is a nuisance but law currently allows such nuisances and to stop that the law needs to be change" judgment.
|
|