|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 2, 2021 16:10:04 GMT
It could be argued it's not their job. Unless you think they should maintain such a list of vacancies at all times, and if so for what purpose? I would be wary of any move that would take powers over local by-elections away from councils and hand them to a centralised unelected quango. Maintaining a list of vacancies is not a power. All it would mean is that there would be an official national list of vacancies, rather than an unofficial one maintained in someone's spare time. Councils would still have to be aware of their own vacancies, and would continue to be in charge of everything to do with actually holding by-elections.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,027
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 2, 2021 19:45:13 GMT
If they're to maintain an "official" list of vacancies then for what purpose? And what is meant by official? Does a vacancy only become official when it has been added to the official list? Does the EC have to intervene or rule when a vacancy is disputed? Does the EC have to start regulating local by-elections?
A list for list's sake is pointless and a waste of resources unless there is any meaningful purpose. And the creation of a pointless list is likely to lead to a push for the EC to take some sort of official role in the process to make the list worthwhile, which will ultimately mean taking powers over local by-elections from local authorities.
|
|
|
Post by evergreenadam on Feb 2, 2021 21:07:02 GMT
If they're to maintain an "official" list of vacancies then for what purpose? And what is meant by official? Does a vacancy only become official when it has been added to the official list? Does the EC have to intervene or rule when a vacancy is disputed? Does the EC have to start regulating local by-elections? A list for list's sake is pointless and a waste of resources unless there is any meaningful purpose. And the creation of a pointless list is likely to lead to a push for the EC to take some sort of official role in the process to make the list worthwhile, which will ultimately mean taking powers over local by-elections from local authorities. Do they publicise any local elections or results at the moment? If not, it would be peculiar if they started with local government by-elections.
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Feb 2, 2021 21:14:06 GMT
If they're to maintain an "official" list of vacancies then for what purpose? And what is meant by official? Does a vacancy only become official when it has been added to the official list? Does the EC have to intervene or rule when a vacancy is disputed? Does the EC have to start regulating local by-elections? A list for list's sake is pointless and a waste of resources unless there is any meaningful purpose. And the creation of a pointless list is likely to lead to a push for the EC to take some sort of official role in the process to make the list worthwhile, which will ultimately mean taking powers over local by-elections from local authorities. Do they publicise any local elections or results at the moment? If not, it would be peculiar if they started with local government by-elections. There does seem to be a facility on their website where you can put in your postcode and see if there is an election or by election in your area.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,027
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 2, 2021 21:23:43 GMT
If they're to maintain an "official" list of vacancies then for what purpose? And what is meant by official? Does a vacancy only become official when it has been added to the official list? Does the EC have to intervene or rule when a vacancy is disputed? Does the EC have to start regulating local by-elections? A list for list's sake is pointless and a waste of resources unless there is any meaningful purpose. And the creation of a pointless list is likely to lead to a push for the EC to take some sort of official role in the process to make the list worthwhile, which will ultimately mean taking powers over local by-elections from local authorities. Do they publicise any local elections or results at the moment? If not, it would be peculiar if they started with local government by-elections. That is entirely down to local authorities at the moment, and in my view that's appropriate. I agree it would be odd to start just for by-elections. There would be a value in the EC maintaining an archive of past election results at principal authority level and above in my opinion. That's not the same as having an official role in the process, however.
|
|
|
Post by sjorford on Feb 3, 2021 11:12:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Feb 3, 2021 18:18:59 GMT
Council Data UK have done an update and the following new vacancies have appeared:
Brighton and Hove, Hollingdean and Stanmer (resignation of Tracey Hill, Lab) East Northants, Kings Forest (death of Roger Glithero, C) - six month rule applies East Northants, Rushden Sartoris (death of Ron Pinnock, C) - six month rule applies Ipswich, Holywells (resignation of Jan Parry, Lab) Monmouthshire, St Kingsmark (death of David Dovey, C) Sunderland, Shiney Row (death of Geoff Walker, Lab) Thanet, Dane Valley (resignation of Gary Taylor, Thanet Ind) Wolverhampton, Bushbury North (resignation (probably) of Hazel Malcolm, Lab) - six month rule applies
|
|
|
Post by listener on Feb 3, 2021 20:13:19 GMT
I am hearing suggestions that, given the current "vaccine bounce", the Government may be reluctant to postpone the May elections.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 3, 2021 20:16:26 GMT
I am hearing suggestions that, given the current "vaccine bounce", the Government may be reluctant to postpone the May elections. As the rules currently stand under the government's interpretation it's going to be illegal to collect nomination signatures, let alone actually campaign.
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Feb 3, 2021 20:31:53 GMT
As the rules currently stand under the government's interpretation it's going to be illegal to collect nomination signatures, let alone actually campaign. Nah its fine. It is widely accepted that voters can continue to get campaigning information remotely.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 3, 2021 20:56:49 GMT
As the rules currently stand under the government's interpretation it's going to be illegal to collect nomination signatures, let alone actually campaign. Nah its fine. It is widely accepted that voters can continue to get campaigning information remotely. There's literally nothing in that last sentence that is factually correct.
|
|
|
Post by lackeroftalent on Feb 3, 2021 21:01:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by southernliberal on Feb 3, 2021 22:38:55 GMT
My understanding is it is now almost certain the elections will be going ahead in May, with possible alterations to how candidates can collect/submit nominating signatures. With the recent decline in case rate which is only expected to increase this month with the effect of the vaccine properly starting to take effect, I do think it's somewhat inevitable that we have a somewhat loosening of restrictions in late Feb/early March, to make leafletting legal once more and ease the practicalities of signature gathering.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 3, 2021 22:43:45 GMT
My understanding is it is now almost certain the elections will be going ahead in May, with possible alterations to how candidates can collect/submit nominating signatures. With the recent decline in case rate which is only expected to increase this month with the effect of the vaccine properly starting to take effect, I do think it's somewhat inevitable that we have a somewhat loosening of restrictions in late Feb/early March, to make leafletting legal once more and ease the practicalities of signature gathering. It should be noted that leafleting is perfectly legal according to the letter of the law, which allows voluntary activity. The only reason the government sent that letter saying that political parties should not be leafleting is pure partisanship.
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,027
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 3, 2021 22:51:54 GMT
Any activity is technically 'voluntary' if you do it for free. Only a court could really define what actually counts as voluntary in relation to the Coronavirus Regulations, and I suspect they wouldn't take an overly lenient view, particularly if the activity in question was only of any real benefit to the person doing it. Most reasonable people would in my opinion take volunteering to be charitable activities and giving help to others.
The spirit of the law is often also important, and there is a strong case to be made that political activity is outside the spirit of the law.
|
|
|
Post by 🏴☠️ Neath West 🏴☠️ on Feb 3, 2021 23:00:54 GMT
Any activity is technically 'voluntary' if you do it for free. In the event that they've been stupid enough not to define "voluntary", the definition may be broader still: voluntary, adj., adv., and n. A. adj. I. Characterized by free will or choice; freely done or bestowed. 1. b. (a) Of actions: performed or done of one's own free will, impulse, or choice; not constrained, prompted, or suggested by another.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 3, 2021 23:36:06 GMT
As the rules currently stand under the government's interpretation it's going to be illegal to collect nomination signatures, let alone actually campaign. Nah its fine. It is widely accepted that voters can continue to get campaigning information remotely. But how are those voters who haven't already made the decision to seek out information informed about candidates and persuaded to seek out information?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,635
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Feb 3, 2021 23:54:19 GMT
Any activity is technically 'voluntary' if you do it for free. No, that's "unpaid". Voluntary is "not compelled".
|
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,027
|
Post by ilerda on Feb 4, 2021 0:05:26 GMT
Any activity is technically 'voluntary' if you do it for free. No, that's "unpaid". Voluntary is "not compelled". The OED provides both definitions for voluntary. And I think most people are intelligent to know that these days the meaning normally encompasses both.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Feb 4, 2021 0:10:22 GMT
Any activity is technically 'voluntary' if you do it for free. Only a court could really define what actually counts as voluntary in relation to the Coronavirus Regulations, and I suspect they wouldn't take an overly lenient view, particularly if the activity in question was only of any real benefit to the person doing it. Most reasonable people would in my opinion take volunteering to be charitable activities and giving help to others. The spirit of the law is often also important, and there is a strong case to be made that political activity is outside the spirit of the law. The usual definition of voluntary work would be undertaking unpaid activities on behalf of a voluntary organisation such as a charity, relgious group, or political party. This would seem to be the kind of activity that is intended by the relevant line in the legislation. It would be a very odd legal ruling that decided voluntary work as defined in the legislation applies to volunteering for some kinds of organisations but not others when the legislation does not include any hint of such a stipulation.
Quite frankly it's ridiculous that my lodger can legally deliver pointless junk that people order off Amazon, but I can't deliver leaflets containing useful information, such as helplines. It would be even more ridiculous if the local elections went ahead with a ban on all of the usual forms of campaigning. Such elections certainly couldn't be described as free and fair, given the massive advantage it would give to the biggest two parties.
|
|