South Shields

[stepney]

Apr 15, 2013 12:51:49 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

40 minutes to go until the last possible opportunity to call the election for 2 May, and there is still no sign of any new Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty's Manor of Northstead, County York.

They can't have put it up until today, but the press notice is dated yesterday.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Notice of election issued: www.southtyneside.info/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17145&p=0

Close of nominations is 4 PM on Friday and polling day is 2 May.

[Andrew_S]

Apr 16, 2013 13:27:43 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Notice of election issued: www.southtyneside.info/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=17145&p=0

Close of nominations is 4 PM on Friday and polling day is 2 May.

So just 16 days between the official announcement and polling day.

[erlend]

My personal feeling is that the law should be changed. After an intervening General Election and with a couple of years notice so that it can be done independently of current political needs of parties so that they can look at it more dispassionately as a change.

As it is the notice to get a PV is absurdly short. RO's have real problems with this. And as an agent trying to sort out design, approval and management of my Freepost would give me the heeby jeebies.

[mboy]

Yes the current system is daft. There should automatically be a by-election on the Thursday after 2 months after either a resignation or death of an MP. End of story.

[erlend]

There are reasons for some flexibility to that. If the vacancy comes more than 1 month or less than 3 months before scheduled local (or assembly/parliament) elections in all or part of the constituency it shall occur on that date.

We also don't necessarily want elections to occur at certain dates perhaps August or in say the 18/12 to 08/01 period. It is also useful to allow it not to occur on a Thursday (I think Hamilton 1978 was the last such.

[Deleted]

There should be a more formal system, I agree. What we have now - as is ever the case in this shambles of a 19th century old boy's club that is a country - is a lot of nods, a few winks, and occasional back handers. We can barely call ourselves a democracy, never mind a functioning one.

An MP resigns, and what happens? Process and ''tradition'' and the usual channels. Balls to that - as above, a fixed period from resigning to polling day. If we can be mature enough to have fixed term parliaments - and God knows that's overdue by 100+ years - then we can have fixed period byelections.

[johnloony]

Apr 16, 2013 18:42:56 GMT mboy said:

There should automatically be a by-election on the Thursday after 2 months after either a resignation or death of an MP. End of story.

That suggestion is ultra-nincompoopismatic, for several obvious reasons. For example, what if said Thursday is Christmas Day? What if the outgoing MP disappears for several months to a new job but delays his resignation as the MP for tactical reasons, so as to engineer a by-election at a particular date?

Writing "End of story" is a particularly silly thing to write, as if you think that it automatically invalidates any arguments against what you have said.

[andrewteale]

I think the rule in Scotland is that the by-election has to be within three months of the vacancy. This seems reasonable to me. At the other end of the scale, we've just had the presidential election in Venezuela which constitutionally had to be held within thirty days of Chávez' death.

I've sometimes wondered whether it would be worth accumulating by-elections over a short period and holding them all on one Thursday per month, or per quarter. It might raise the profile of local by-elections.

[Deleted]

Apr 17, 2013 8:42:36 GMT andrewteale said:

I think the rule in Scotland is that the by-election has to be within three months of the vacancy. This seems reasonable to me. At the other end of the scale, we've just had the presidential election in Venezuela which constitutionally had to be held within thirty days of Chávez' death.

I've sometimes wondered whether it would be worth accumulating by-elections over a short period and holding them all on one Thursday per month, or per quarter. It might raise the profile of local by-elections.

Isn't the grouping together the Canadian model?

[AdminSTB]

Grouping together would be terrible. Would kill the regular traffic to my election results sites.

[The Bishop]

It would be a bad idea for more reasons than just that, tbh

[greatkingrat]

Apr 16, 2013 13:44:09 GMT erlend said:

My personal feeling is that the law should be changed. After an intervening General Election and with a couple of years notice so that it can be done independently of current political needs of parties so that they can look at it more dispassionately as a change.

As it is the notice to get a PV is absurdly short. RO's have real problems with this. And as an agent trying to sort out design, approval and management of my Freepost would give me the heeby jeebies.

Actually the law has already been changed as part of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. The relevant clause (14) has not yet been brought into effect but when it is polling day will be 17-19 days after close of nominations (while it is currently 9-11 days).

[johnloony]

Apr 17, 2013 8:42:36 GMT andrewteale said:

I've sometimes wondered whether it would be worth accumulating by-elections over a short period and holding them all on one Thursday per month, or per quarter. It might raise the profile of local by-elections.

Many years ago I had a brilliant idea which would be ideal for providing a steady flow of regular by-elections which we could get suitably excited about.

(The awkward side-effect would be that it would be necessary to abolish boundary changes, and have a fixed set of constituency boundaries in place for several decades, but anyway:)

Phase out general elections.
In the constituencies where a by-election has taken place, the MP has to face re-election five years later (and every five years thereafter), but does not have to stand for re-election in the subsequent general election.
General elections only continue to happen in the constituencies where no by-election has taken place.
Gradually, the number of constituencies which vote in a general election will diminish, as more and more constituencies have by-elections and therefore adopt their own five-yearly election cycles.
MPs who wish to retire will no longer feel the need to wait until their five-year term has ended, so the number of constituencies with by-elections will actually accelerate.

In the very long term, there will be a negligible number of constituencies where no by-election has taken place, and there will be a regular flow of by-elections - with a pre-determined timetable of when each constituency is next due to vote.

[Tony Otim]

Apr 17, 2013 16:08:47 GMT @boogieeck said:

Its a lovely idea. Surely it would result in governments losing their majority only gradually, after a long period of single digit majority and lame duckedness. They would then pass on to a new coalition government, who would have a majority of one and who would instantly become unpopular due to having to actually make decisions. They would not last a year before losing their majority as so on ad infinitum. The major plus is that Labour would never get more than a year and since I hate Labour far more than I like the appaling Conservatives that appeals to me. In practice, no party would have a majority and we would have perpetual coalition government, which once the electorate got used to it, would mean that additional third parties would emerge. Probably both UKIP and the Celtic nationalists.

Generally, I agree with the thrust of your argument, but your maths is a bit out - a new coalition would not be limited to a majority. For example if you had a Labour majority which gradually reduces and they fall to 1 short of a majority. They then join forces with the LDs who have 50 seats, the new coalition suddenly has a majority of 100, not 1.

[Pimpernal]

I kind of feel, what with them being in govt and all, that the Celtic nationalists in Scotland might feel they have already emerged?

[Andrew_S]

Apr 17, 2013 16:00:32 GMT johnloony said:

Apr 17, 2013 8:42:36 GMT andrewteale said:

I've sometimes wondered whether it would be worth accumulating by-elections over a short period and holding them all on one Thursday per month, or per quarter. It might raise the profile of local by-elections.

Many years ago I had a brilliant idea which would be ideal for providing a steady flow of regular by-elections which we could get suitably excited about.

(The awkward side-effect would be that it would be necessary to abolish boundary changes, and have a fixed set of constituency boundaries in place for several decades, but anyway:)

Phase out general elections.
In the constituencies where a by-election has taken place, the MP has to face re-election five years later (and every five years thereafter), but does not have to stand for re-election in the subsequent general election.
General elections only continue to happen in the constituencies where no by-election has taken place.
Gradually, the number of constituencies which vote in a general election will diminish, as more and more constituencies have by-elections and therefore adopt their own five-yearly election cycles.
MPs who wish to retire will no longer feel the need to wait until their five-year term has ended, so the number of constituencies with by-elections will actually accelerate.

In the very long term, there will be a negligible number of constituencies where no by-election has taken place, and there will be a regular flow of by-elections - with a pre-determined timetable of when each constituency is next due to vote.

I like the idea if only because it's the opposite of the horrible situation in a country like Germany where a government can win a majority of one seat in a general election and knows that it can survive for five years because almost nothing can change the result.

[mboy]

We should do away with election of people - we should elect policies.

Politicians and anyone else should create and submit policies to a central computer, and then campaign for their policies to be elected. On polling day, voters go into a booth and are presented with various policy packages with costs, and various tax pages with values. The voters are allowed to mix and match policy and tax packages and submit their favourite balanced choice. The computer then runs a minimisation routine that find the best total fit of policies and taxes that balances and fulfils the most desires of the most people. The civil service then implements the policy/tax package in full transparency, while the political parties scrutinise them.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

I once thought up a variant on that where each party would put forward separate policies for each Department and they would be elected separately, with associated price tag - and the Chancellor would be obliged to raise the appropriate total amount in each year's budget but with discretion as to which taxes to use.

[andrea]

Former Independent Cllr Ahmed Khan has announced he will stand in the by-election. He lost his council seat in 2012, Beacon and Bents ward IIRC.