|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 14:44:42 GMT
Thanks.
Bizarre that a by-election caused by a death can be called during recess.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 27, 2019 15:12:19 GMT
Am I correct in thinking that to ‘resign’ via the Chilten Hundreds/Stewrd of Northstend the process can only take place when Parliament is sitting? Therefore that’s why he needs to wait until next week. He could be appointed to a Stewardship on any date, but the byelection can only be called when Parliament is sitting. According to this it can be called in a Recess: www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1975/66/section/1
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 16:18:59 GMT
Er, no. Read at the end of that section: "'disqualifying office' means any office, other than the office of steward or bailiff of Her Majesty's three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham or of the Manor of Northstead, which disqualifies its holder for membership of the House of Commons". (Emphasis added)
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 27, 2019 16:39:08 GMT
So, assuming Jared rides off into the Chilterns next Tuesday, who gets to call the by-election under the Gentleman's agreement? Is there precedent for independents elected for a Party? (perhaps this was answered upthread somewhere in which case I apologise)
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Aug 27, 2019 17:01:58 GMT
So, assuming Jared rides off into the Chilterns next Tuesday, who gets to call the by-election under the Gentleman's agreement? Is there precedent for independents elected for a Party? (perhaps this was answered upthread somewhere in which case I apologise) The general consensus seems to be the honour goes to the Party for whom the independent was elected for, so in this instance Labour. Whether they hold fire in case of an October GE will be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 27, 2019 17:06:14 GMT
Has anything been put in place to stop the Chancellor appointing whomever they like as a Steward, regardless of whether they consent or not?
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Aug 27, 2019 17:08:33 GMT
Has anything been put in place to stop the Chancellor appointing whomever they like as a Steward, regardless of whether they consent or not? I am guessing you do have to accept the appointment?
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 17:18:56 GMT
Has anything been put in place to stop the Chancellor appointing whomever they like as a Steward, regardless of whether they consent or not? I am guessing you do have to accept the appointment? It used to be the act of accepting the appointment that was the disqualifying act. Section 8(1) of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 states "No person being a member of the House of Commons, or for the time being nominated as a candidate for election to that House, shall be required to accept any office or place by virtue of which he would be disqualified by this Act for membership of that House, or for membership of that House for the constituency for which he is sitting or is a candidate." I think that rules out any MP being appointed as Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds against their will.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 17:31:09 GMT
Has anything been put in place to stop the Chancellor appointing whomever they like as a Steward, regardless of whether they consent or not? I am guessing you do have to accept the appointment? I believe Martin MacGuinness attempted to circumvent the normal procedure to avoid being appointed to a crown office upon his resignation, but was appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead anyway, so I'm not sure about that.
|
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Aug 27, 2019 17:39:45 GMT
I am guessing you do have to accept the appointment? I believe Martin MacGuinness attempted to circumvent the normal procedure to avoid being appointed to a crown office upon his resignation, but was appointed Steward of the Manor of Northstead anyway, so I'm not sure about that. Yes but he had clearly stated his intent to resign and so using good old fashioned common sense it was argued that he clearly wanted to resign and since this was the only way to resign he had implicitly accepted the office.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Aug 27, 2019 18:49:35 GMT
That was Gerry Adams. He wrote to the Speaker to say he thereby resigned his seat, and Sinn Féin then press released that he had resigned in this way. A number of journalists accepted this at face value but found that the UK constitution was not as flexible as that. The Speaker forwarded his letter to the Treasury which took it as a request for a Stewardship and granted it, despite Adams having said he did not want to become a Crown appointment even as a legal fiction.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 18:56:41 GMT
He wrote to the Speaker to say he thereby resigned his seat It’s not a priority I know, but one day we must get around to sorting out this whole resignation issue.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 27, 2019 19:37:33 GMT
He wrote to the Speaker to say he thereby resigned his seat It’s not a priority I know, but one day we must get around to sorting out this whole resignation issue. Saving Gerry Adams and other Sinners from embarrassment is the worst possible reason though. The current system is pretty straightforward de facto - an MP writers a letter to a designated official, said official verifies the letter is true (I'm sure the Chancellor has received many a letter purporting to be from the various party switchers) and deems the seat vacant. You could allow direct resignation to the Speaker but keep the Stewardship route for historically minded MPs (you know this is the only way the Mogg would leave mid term) and also make it a requirement that you can only resign directly if you've taken the oath with abstentionist MPs required to go the embarrassing route.
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Aug 27, 2019 19:41:17 GMT
P.S. Sinner MPs could be offered the alternative method of a public sector appointment that disqualifies them. For some reason in 2011 Gerry Adams thought it better to be given a role serving the Queen than to be a director of Northern Ireland Water.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2019 19:52:11 GMT
He wrote to the Speaker to say he thereby resigned his seat It’s not a priority I know, but one day we must get around to sorting out this whole resignation issue. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If a party which doesn't even takes its seats has an issue with the method of resignation from parliament - that is their problem, not everyone else's.
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 20:22:38 GMT
It’s not a priority I know, but one day we must get around to sorting out this whole resignation issue. If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If a party which doesn't even takes its seats has an issue with the method of resignation from parliament - that is their problem, not everyone else's. But the situation is broke. O’Marra has publicly said he wants to resign - he might have very legitimate reasons for hanging on until the first week of September but I haven't seen any evidence of it, he’s forced to hang around on the public payroll until Parliament resumes next week. Just be thankful this didn’t happen twenty years ago when the summer/conference recess lasted over two months. The election of his successor can’t officially start until next week so the whole thing IMO needs to be looked at. It might be very quaint and British but why should MPs be they disgraced, ill or just moving on with their lives need to apply to a (for all inventive purposes) fictional role appointed by the Treasury? If a country declared independence tomorrow, they wouldn’t use the system we use would they? Logical reform would involve formally writing someone (The Speaker or a named official) and the Speaker triggering the resulting by-election. I’ve given by thoughts on why party whips shouldn’t be the people to move write, but I know I’m in the minority here.
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Aug 27, 2019 21:38:42 GMT
Didn't a judge ruled against your interpretation of the latter? I don't think so. The case I think you have in mind is that of Steve Jones, of Bryn ward on Wigan borough council, who sent in a letter to the Chief Executive on 5 January stating that he was to resign his seat on a specified date. The council decided that his resignation was effective immediately and called a byelection; Jones obtained a High Court judgment that he had never resigned. The best explanation of the ruling is here. Jones had written that "as of the 20th of February 2018 I will be resigning". Jones argued that was simply an advance warning that the council would receive his formal resignation on that date. If, however, he had written "I would like to resign my seat, taking effect on the 20th of February 2018" then the latter half would correctly have been ignored and the seat declared vacant immediately. See: towncouncillor.com/4381/can-parish-councillor-give-notice-of-resignation-the-futureI have always been confused about that case in Wigan. I do not understand, and I never understood, why the council interpreted his letter as meaning that he had already resigned. Even if the wording of his letter had been in the latter form that you have quoted, why would that prevent the council from interpreting the sentence in its entirety, on a commonsense basis?
|
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,416
|
Post by Crimson King on Aug 27, 2019 21:41:19 GMT
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. If a party which doesn't even takes its seats has an issue with the method of resignation from parliament - that is their problem, not everyone else's. But the situation is broke. O’Marra has publicly said he wants to resign - he might have very legitimate reasons for hanging on until the first week of September but I haven't seen any evidence of it, he’s forced to hang around on the public payroll until Parliament resumes next week. Just be thankful this didn’t happen twenty years ago when the summer/conference recess lasted over two months. The election of his successor can’t officially start until next week so the whole thing IMO needs to be looked at. It might be very quaint and British but why should MPs be they disgraced, ill or just moving on with their lives need to apply to a (for all inventive purposes) fictional role appointed by the Treasury? If a country declared independence tomorrow, they wouldn’t use the system we use would they? Logical reform would involve formally writing someone (The Speaker or a named official) and the Speaker triggering the resulting by-election. I’ve given by thoughts on why party whips shouldn’t be the people to move write, but I know I’m in the minority here. I am happy to be corrected, but I think O’Mara said he was going to resign when parliament was still sitting, so could have done so then, but chose to announce he would resign after the recess (leaving aside the fact that he could and should have chosen to resign any time in the months prior to that) The idea that the poor man is being forced to hang on and keep his pay because of outdated procedures is not at all convincing
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Aug 27, 2019 21:45:04 GMT
When did he last turn up in Westminster? Might he hang on to have a bearing on any important votes in the next few weeks?
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Aug 27, 2019 21:45:56 GMT
I am happy to be corrected, but I think O’Mara said he was going to resign when parliament was still sitting, so could have done so then, but chose to announce he would resign after the recess (leaving aside the fact that he could and should have chosen to resign any time in the months prior to that) The idea that the poor man is being forced to hang on and keep his pay because of outdated procedures is not at all convincing Recess started on 25th July. This tread started on 27th.
|
|