peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,468 
|
Post by peterl on Oct 17, 2022 21:21:28 GMT
It should save electoral services a fair bit of time as well. Say a council has 50 seats and an all up election and an average of 3 candidates stand for each seat. Under the current law, that's 1,500 signatures to check, under the new law just 300. I'm not normally much for deregulation, but this is a positive move for all concerned. Once you've got down to a proper and seconder only, it does make me wonder to some degree what the point of them is as well. Allow registered political parties to nominate by certificate and require a couple of signatures for Independents? No, asides from the formalities of using party logos and descriptions, the requirements really should be the same for everyone. Why should a popular independent councillor have to do more work to get on the ballot than a candidate for a one-man-and-his-dog ego party? Either a proposer and seconder for everyone or no signatures at all makes sense. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 17, 2022 21:52:34 GMT
I wonder if this will result in a reduction in the number of uncontested elections. Not necessarily, especially in rural parishes and small towns. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 27, 2022 23:26:21 GMT
I wonder if this will result in a reduction in the number of uncontested elections. It will certainly save a HUGE amount of time for agents, campaign managers and dedicated activists who have long spent hours going round collecting signatures for paper candidates. Should also significantly reduce the number of times one person subscribes more papers than to which they are entitled! Only just seen details of this but I hope it will mean certain electoral services will stop faffing about in processing the forms and quickly inform agents that the nomination is accepted or that it needs fixing. Too many waste time needlessly. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 27, 2022 23:32:31 GMT
Once you've got down to a proper and seconder only, it does make me wonder to some degree what the point of them is as well. Allow registered political parties to nominate by certificate and require a couple of signatures for Independents? That wouldn't work when a party can be registered so easily. In countries that have this provision a party usually needs to provide a much greater level of support/membership in order to get such benefits. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,755
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Oct 28, 2022 8:09:53 GMT
It will certainly save a HUGE amount of time for agents, campaign managers and dedicated activists who have long spent hours going round collecting signatures for paper candidates. Should also significantly reduce the number of times one person subscribes more papers than to which they are entitled! It will also reduce the number of times the agent gets the wrong electors to sign the papers. (post passim)  |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,468
|
Post by peterl on Nov 5, 2022 0:20:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 6, 2023 13:37:18 GMT
A point of electoral law that has always sat ill with me is the rule that if a candidate dies after close of nominations the poll is deferred. I am reminded of this by a post on another thread raising the possibility that this might happen in the Speaker's constituency at a GE, meaning that when Parliament reassembles the Speaker is not an MP. But it could equally happen in the Prime Minister's constituency or the Leader of the Opposition's, and the current rule seems to me to have the potential to generate an unhelpfully messy situation. The US practice, I believe, is to go ahead with the election as planned, with the deceased candidate still on the ballot. If the election is won by someone with a pulse, then that's the end of it; if the deceased candidate wins, then the seat is vacant and a byelection is called in the usual way. Usually I am the last to advocate the importation of US political practice to the UK, but is this not an instance where the Cousins have got something right? This is becoming more of an issue, I suggest, as the number of candidates tends to proliferate, especially in a high-profile seat like the PM's. The more candidates there are, the greater the chance that one of them will go to the great hustings in the sky before polling day.
Your views are sought.
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,877
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 6, 2023 13:58:14 GMT
A point of electoral law that has always sat ill with me is the rule that if a candidate dies after close of nominations the poll is deferred. I am reminded of this by a post on another thread raising the possibility that this might happen in the Speaker's constituency at a GE, meaning that when Parliament reassembles the Speaker is not an MP. But it could equally happen in the Prime Minister's constituency or the Leader of the Opposition's, and the current rule seems to me to have the potential to generate an unhelpfully messy situation. The US practice, I believe, is to go ahead with the election as planned, with the deceased candidate still on the ballot. If the election is won by someone with a pulse, then that's the end of it; if the deceased candidate wins, then the seat is vacant and a byelection is called in the usual way. Usually I am the last to advocate the importation of US political practice to the UK, but is this not an instance where the Cousins have got something right? This is becoming more of an issue, I suggest, as the number of candidates tends to proliferate, especially in a high-profile seat like the PM's. The more candidates there are, the greater the chance that one of them will go to the great hustings in the sky before polling day.
Your views are sought.
An excellent observation very well made by you. Nothing to add other than I agree that it has never sat well with me either. Just proceed as normal and hold a by-election if necessary. Usually the deceased is some complete no-hoper and he is not there to stand in the delayed GE so it was all for no reason at all. I see nothing gained by a postponement. |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Jan 6, 2023 14:09:09 GMT
I would not disagree with the substantive point, islington. The only point I would make is that I'm not convinced the problem is getting worse, and the point about multiple fringe candidates in, say, the PM's constituency and other such high profile places, is scarcely new and I feel was probably a greater problem a few years ago. It's only luck the scenario you envisage hasn't happened. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 6, 2023 17:37:21 GMT
A point of electoral law that has always sat ill with me is the rule that if a candidate dies after close of nominations the poll is deferred. I am reminded of this by a post on another thread raising the possibility that this might happen in the Speaker's constituency at a GE, meaning that when Parliament reassembles the Speaker is not an MP. But it could equally happen in the Prime Minister's constituency or the Leader of the Opposition's, and the current rule seems to me to have the potential to generate an unhelpfully messy situation. The US practice, I believe, is to go ahead with the election as planned, with the deceased candidate still on the ballot. If the election is won by someone with a pulse, then that's the end of it; if the deceased candidate wins, then the seat is vacant and a byelection is called in the usual way. Usually I am the last to advocate the importation of US political practice to the UK, but is this not an instance where the Cousins have got something right? This is becoming more of an issue, I suggest, as the number of candidates tends to proliferate, especially in a high-profile seat like the PM's. The more candidates there are, the greater the chance that one of them will go to the great hustings in the sky before polling day.
Your views are sought.
I agree. If more candidates were aware of the situation, they would give instructions that in the event of their death the R.O. should not be told until after the close of poll. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on Jan 6, 2023 18:16:23 GMT
A point of electoral law that has always sat ill with me is the rule that if a candidate dies after close of nominations the poll is deferred. I am reminded of this by a post on another thread raising the possibility that this might happen in the Speaker's constituency at a GE, meaning that when Parliament reassembles the Speaker is not an MP. But it could equally happen in the Prime Minister's constituency or the Leader of the Opposition's, and the current rule seems to me to have the potential to generate an unhelpfully messy situation. The US practice, I believe, is to go ahead with the election as planned, with the deceased candidate still on the ballot. If the election is won by someone with a pulse, then that's the end of it; if the deceased candidate wins, then the seat is vacant and a byelection is called in the usual way. Usually I am the last to advocate the importation of US political practice to the UK, but is this not an instance where the Cousins have got something right? This is becoming more of an issue, I suggest, as the number of candidates tends to proliferate, especially in a high-profile seat like the PM's. The more candidates there are, the greater the chance that one of them will go to the great hustings in the sky before polling day.
Your views are sought.
I agree, and was a bit surprised that when the law on this was changed the change only applied if it was an independent candidate who died. (The change meant that the elections in Hampstead & Kilburn in 2015 and Rutland & Melton in 2019 were not deferred.) Presumably there is a concern that if a candidate in a constituency in which their party were genuinely competitive died during the campaign this would distort the result, as voters would presumably be less likely to vote for the deceased candidate. But I suspect that the distorting effect of deferring the poll would often be greater, and would apply even if it were a minor party's candidate who had died. E.g. I suspect that had Ronnie Carroll in 2015 been standing as a party candidate and so the election in Hampstead & Kilburn had been deferred, a demoralised Labour would have lost the seat to the Tories. Fortunately the two actual deferrals this century both occurred in safe seats, and not the PM's or the Speaker's. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 6, 2023 18:25:38 GMT
A point of electoral law that has always sat ill with me is the rule that if a candidate dies after close of nominations the poll is deferred. I am reminded of this by a post on another thread raising the possibility that this might happen in the Speaker's constituency at a GE, meaning that when Parliament reassembles the Speaker is not an MP. But it could equally happen in the Prime Minister's constituency or the Leader of the Opposition's, and the current rule seems to me to have the potential to generate an unhelpfully messy situation. The US practice, I believe, is to go ahead with the election as planned, with the deceased candidate still on the ballot. If the election is won by someone with a pulse, then that's the end of it; if the deceased candidate wins, then the seat is vacant and a byelection is called in the usual way. Usually I am the last to advocate the importation of US political practice to the UK, but is this not an instance where the Cousins have got something right? This is becoming more of an issue, I suggest, as the number of candidates tends to proliferate, especially in a high-profile seat like the PM's. The more candidates there are, the greater the chance that one of them will go to the great hustings in the sky before polling day.
Your views are sought.
There was a change to the rules after the 2005 general election, which saw a postponed poll in South Staffordshire. Sir Patrick Cormack was the MP for South Staffordshire at the time, and he raised similar points which led to the amendment. The Cormack amendment says that the poll in a UK general election is postponed if a candidate nominated by a political party dies, whereas the poll goes ahead if an independent candidate dies. This change first had an effect in the 2015 general election, when the poll in Hampstead and Kilburn went ahead despite the death of independent candidate Ronnie Carroll. Had Carroll won from beyond the grave, the seat would have been vacant as you suggest. The Cormack amendment is also used in some other contests including Scottish local elections ( a 2014 local by-election in Orkney went ahead with a dead candidate), but it doesn't apply to local elections in England and Wales. Ironically it wouldn't have applied to Cormack's own case, because the 2005 South Staffordshire candidate who died was nominated by the Liberal Democrats. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 6, 2023 19:06:43 GMT
I thank YL and andrewteale because I am now better informed and that's always a good thing.
But I am not reassured and for two reasons.
First, all candidates should surely be equal in the eyes of electoral law and it is invidious to draw a distinction between independent candidates and those representing parties. And this is not the same as a distinction between 'credible candidates' and 'fringe candidates', because many political parties are small and marginal and their candidates are likely standing for reasons of publicity or to make some sort of a point, so they are not really very different from candidates whose main aim is to make an exhibition of themselves on stage at the declaration dressed in some ludicrous costume. In short I do not think the distinction is a meaningful one between an independent candidate who is likely to attract less than 1% of the vote and a representative of a minor political party whose electoral prospects are similar.
My other objection is the issue highlighted by YL and Andrew, namely the distorting effect. A deferred election is a byelection in all but name, and it is probably going to be subject to most or all of the features that we all recognize as characteristic of byelections: the Lib Dems may well pile in, George Galloway might stand, and all the rest of it - and the behaviour of voters is very different when the government of the country is not at stake.
Suppose a GE has an indecisive result and is followed by a period of intense negotiations between political leaders to find a viable way forward. Is it really in the national interest while this sensitive political situation is unfolding to have one of the party leaders distracted by having to fight what is effectively a byelection in his or her own seat, just because a candidate of some minor political party happened to die a few days before the GE?
I take the point that going ahead with the vote involves a potential distortion because voters may understandably be less likely to vote for a dead candidate (and I agree it would feel a bit odd). But this is nothing like so serious as the distortion likely to result from holding the election several weeks after the rest of the country has voted.
So I'd strongly recommend that the Cormack rule should apply to the death of any candidate, whether independent or representing a party.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,905
|
Post by YL on Jan 7, 2023 9:26:00 GMT
George Galloway might stand I agree with most of what you say, but there is no need to worry about an intervention by the former Member for Glasgow Kelvin, Bethnal Green & Bow and Bradford West. The rules now in force (Representation of the People Act 1983, Schedule 1, section 63) state that "No other nomination may be made except for a person standing in the name of the same registered political party in whose name the deceased candidate was standing." ( Link) |
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jan 7, 2023 10:45:33 GMT
There does seem to be a slight gap in the law if two candidates were to die in close succession. The party of the first candidate to die can replace them, but there is no provision for any subsequent deaths to be replaced.
I have visions of a detective story where both the Conservative and Labour candidates are found dead in a key marginal and Poirot has to try and work out who died first!
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,842
|
Post by Crimson King on Jan 7, 2023 15:56:54 GMT
There does seem to be a slight gap in the law if two candidates were to die in close succession. The party of the first candidate to die can replace them, but there is no provision for any subsequent deaths to be replaced. I have visions of a detective story where both the Conservative and Labour candidates are found dead in a key marginal and Poirot has to try and work out who died first! didn’t the election of Alan B’Stard follow the death of both his opponents in mysterious circumstances (and some artistic liberties taken with the law as described above) |
|
|
|
Post by swindonlad on Jan 7, 2023 16:12:31 GMT
I was told by (a now retired) returning officer that they need the death certificate, not a death for this to be triggered, is this correct? If so, I'm sure any death of a candidate could be seen as needing further investigation until, say, at least, the declaration of the count.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jan 7, 2023 16:51:22 GMT
I was told by (a now retired) returning officer that they need the death certificate, not a death for this to be triggered, is this correct? If so, I'm sure any death of a candidate could be seen as needing further investigation until, say, at least, the declaration of the count. It is not correct. Rule 60(1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules (Rule 55(1) of the Local Election Rules) requires only that "proof is given to the returning officer’s satisfaction before the result of the election is declared that one of the persons named or to be named as candidate in the ballot papers has died" before the declaration of result of poll. Polls have been abandoned when candidates died on polling day, which would certainly not allow enough time for a death certificate. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 7, 2023 18:44:03 GMT
I was told by (a now retired) returning officer that they need the death certificate, not a death for this to be triggered, is this correct? If so, I'm sure any death of a candidate could be seen as needing further investigation until, say, at least, the declaration of the count. It is not correct. Rule 60(1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules (Rule 55(1) of the Local Election Rules) requires only that "proof is given to the returning officer’s satisfaction before the result of the election is declared that one of the persons named or to be named as candidate in the ballot papers has died" before the declaration of result of poll. Polls have been abandoned when candidates died on polling day, which would certainly not allow enough time for a death certificate. On the one occasion I have been involved in such a case the RO put things "on hold" after a phone call from myself (as group leader for the deceased councillor who was - no longer - restanding) confirmed by a tactful conversation with a family member. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jan 7, 2023 20:31:48 GMT
There was a case in a 2019 local election (Newent and Taynton, in Forest of Dean district) where the Greens had nominated specific First, Second and Third Choice candidates in a ward. When the First Choice candidate died, his replacement had to go in as First Choice because the other two candidates couldn't have their descriptions changed, even though they were local and the new First Choice candidate wasn't.
|
|
