|
|
Post by johnloony on May 6, 2023 13:50:40 GMT
So the original reporting of this was completely wrong? Now there's a shock. But to answer the question posed already - no somebody dying *after the close of poll* should not result in an entire multi-member election being countermanded (though of course there should be the usual byelection if they were actually elected) What should happen and what the law states must happen are not necessarily either sensible or identical, but it appears clear that a RO has no choice if formally notified of a death prior to the declaration which seems almost certain in this case if she died over nine hours before close of poll, let alone count and declaration. In this particular case, the report says that she died almost 15 hours *after* the close of poll, not “over nine hours before close of poll”. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 6, 2023 18:12:47 GMT
What should happen and what the law states must happen are not necessarily either sensible or identical, but it appears clear that a RO has no choice if formally notified of a death prior to the declaration which seems almost certain in this case if she died over nine hours before close of poll, let alone count and declaration. In this particular case, the report says that she died almost 15 hours *after* the close of poll, not “over nine hours before close of poll”. The Derby Telegraph seems to be changing its version of events regularly, this is the third time of death they’ve used, however it still doesn’t alter the fact that the law states that if the death occurs before the declaration of a result the election is countermanded which still appears to be the case here. I am at a loss to understand why this is being debated. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on May 6, 2023 19:25:48 GMT
In this particular case, the report says that she died almost 15 hours *after* the close of poll, not “over nine hours before close of poll”. The Derby Telegraph seems to be changing its version of events regularly, this is the third time of death they’ve used, however it still doesn’t alter the fact that the law states that if the death occurs before the declaration of a result the election is countermanded which still appears to be the case here. I am at a loss to understand why this is being debated. Because clearly it was far from clear that she was dead. If it takes two recounts........................... |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 6, 2023 23:09:54 GMT
In this particular case, the report says that she died almost 15 hours *after* the close of poll, not “over nine hours before close of poll”. The Derby Telegraph seems to be changing its version of events regularly, this is the third time of death they’ve used, however it still doesn’t alter the fact that the law states that if the death occurs before the declaration of a result the election is countermanded which still appears to be the case here. I am at a loss to understand why this is being debated. It is being debated because: 1. The law which requires a count to be abandoned upon the death of a candidate (even after the poll has closed (and it cannot possibly make any difference to the result)) is inherently absurd, obviously illogical, and blatantly unfair (to the voters, candidates, and psephologists); 2. The application of that law in that situation depends on the Returning Officer receiving “proof” of the death; 3. The requirement for “proof” provides the R.O. with a convenient loophole / opportunity / pretext to enable him to continue with the count (and to declare the result), by allowing him to interpret the requirement for “proof” in a strict and precise way (for example, by asking for a death certificate) and not merely relying on a verbal communication / message / phone call from an agent or family member. Even if the dead candidate’s agent is well known to the R.O., he could plausibly say that he suspected the phone call might have been made by a hoaxer, or that the agent might have misunderstood what the medical staff had said in the hospital, or whatever. In this specific case, we don’t know if the candidate was at the count, or was somewhere else, or if she was taken to the hospital before death was confirmed, or how quick the death was, or what the cause was. If the candidate’s head is literally cut off with a scythe in the middle of the counting room, with everybody watching, then the R.O. would be certain of death and would have no choice but to abandon the count in accordance with law. But in almost any other situation, there would be an element of flexibility which gives the R.O. enough room for plausible deniabilty. In other words, if a candidate dies after the poll has closed but before the result is declared, then the R.O. should do as much as he possibly can to break the law in a way that it cannot be proved that he has broken the law (i.e. by questioning or ignoring what is purported to be the proof of death). |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on May 6, 2023 23:26:17 GMT
The Derby Telegraph seems to be changing its version of events regularly, this is the third time of death they’ve used, however it still doesn’t alter the fact that the law states that if the death occurs before the declaration of a result the election is countermanded which still appears to be the case here. I am at a loss to understand why this is being debated. It is being debated because: 1. The law which requires a count to be abandoned upon the death of a candidate (even after the poll has closed (and it cannot possibly make any difference to the result)) is inherently absurd, obviously illogical, and blatantly unfair (to the voters, candidates, and psephologists); 2. The application of that law in that situation depends on the Returning Officer receiving “proof” of the death; 3. The requirement for “proof” provides the R.O. with a convenient loophole / opportunity / pretext to enable him to continue with the count (and to declare the result), by allowing him to interpret the requirement for “proof” in a strict and precise way (for example, by asking for a death certificate) and not merely relying on a verbal communication / message / phone call from an agent or family member. Even if the dead candidate’s agent is well known to the R.O., he could plausibly say that he suspected the phone call might have been made by a hoaxer, or that the agent might have misunderstood what the medical staff had said in the hospital, or whatever. In this specific case, we don’t know if the candidate was at the count, or was somewhere else, or if she was taken to the hospital before death was confirmed, or how quick the death was, or what the cause was. If the candidate’s head is literally cut off with a scythe in the middle of the counting room, with everybody watching, then the R.O. would be certain of death and would have no choice but to abandon the count in accordance with law. But in almost any other situation, there would be an element of flexibility which gives the R.O. enough room for plausible deniabilty. In other words, if a candidate dies after the poll has closed but before the result is declared, then the R.O. should do as much as he possibly can to break the law in a way that it cannot be proved that he has broken the law (i.e. by questioning or ignoring what is purported to be the proof of death). 1. As I will continue to say, that’s not the point, and I love how RWNJ’s advocate for breaking laws they disagree with. If you don’t like it, campaign to get the law changed. 2. Correct. 3. Bullshit. As I said earlier a senior paramedic can pronounce life extinct at the candidate’s home or wherever she was taken ill; it’s justification for ceasing treatment such as CPR and, if at home, allowing family members to say private goodbyes before the Coroner’s ambulance removes the body, therefore your room for misunderstanding is childishly silly. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 7, 2023 0:10:46 GMT
It is being debated because: 1. The law which requires a count to be abandoned upon the death of a candidate (even after the poll has closed (and it cannot possibly make any difference to the result)) is inherently absurd, obviously illogical, and blatantly unfair (to the voters, candidates, and psephologists); 2. The application of that law in that situation depends on the Returning Officer receiving “proof” of the death; 3. The requirement for “proof” provides the R.O. with a convenient loophole / opportunity / pretext to enable him to continue with the count (and to declare the result), by allowing him to interpret the requirement for “proof” in a strict and precise way (for example, by asking for a death certificate) and not merely relying on a verbal communication / message / phone call from an agent or family member. Even if the dead candidate’s agent is well known to the R.O., he could plausibly say that he suspected the phone call might have been made by a hoaxer, or that the agent might have misunderstood what the medical staff had said in the hospital, or whatever. In this specific case, we don’t know if the candidate was at the count, or was somewhere else, or if she was taken to the hospital before death was confirmed, or how quick the death was, or what the cause was. If the candidate’s head is literally cut off with a scythe in the middle of the counting room, with everybody watching, then the R.O. would be certain of death and would have no choice but to abandon the count in accordance with law. But in almost any other situation, there would be an element of flexibility which gives the R.O. enough room for plausible deniabilty. In other words, if a candidate dies after the poll has closed but before the result is declared, then the R.O. should do as much as he possibly can to break the law in a way that it cannot be proved that he has broken the law (i.e. by questioning or ignoring what is purported to be the proof of death). 1. As I will continue to say, that’s not the point, and I love how RWNJ’s advocate for breaking laws they disagree with. If you don’t like it, campaign to get the law changed. 2. Correct. 3. Bullshit. As I said earlier a senior paramedic can pronounce life extinct at the candidate’s home or wherever she was taken ill; it’s justification for ceasing treatment such as CPR and, if at home, allowing family members to say private goodbyes before the Coroner’s ambulance removes the body, therefore your room for misunderstanding is childishly silly. 1. Who or what is RWNJ? 3. You’re still missing my point. Suppose a paramedic pronounces life extinct at the candidate’s home. What happens then? The paramedic phones the Returning Officer. How does the R.O. know that the phone call / is genuine? That the paramedic is a genuine paramedic, and not an impostor / hoaxer? Or the paramedic (or the family of the deceased) phones the party agent. The party agent phones the R.O. (or even tells the R.O. verbally at the count). How can the R.O. be certain that the agent has understood correctly? That the agent hasn’t been duped by a hoax call? |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 7, 2023 6:14:31 GMT
1. As I will continue to say, that’s not the point, and I love how RWNJ’s advocate for breaking laws they disagree with. If you don’t like it, campaign to get the law changed. 2. Correct. 3. Bullshit. As I said earlier a senior paramedic can pronounce life extinct at the candidate’s home or wherever she was taken ill; it’s justification for ceasing treatment such as CPR and, if at home, allowing family members to say private goodbyes before the Coroner’s ambulance removes the body, therefore your room for misunderstanding is childishly silly. 1. Who or what is RWNJ? 3. You’re still missing my point. Suppose a paramedic pronounces life extinct at the candidate’s home. What happens then? The paramedic phones the Returning Officer. How does the R.O. know that the phone call / is genuine? That the paramedic is a genuine paramedic, and not an impostor / hoaxer? Or the paramedic (or the family of the deceased) phones the party agent. The party agent phones the R.O. (or even tells the R.O. verbally at the count). How can the R.O. be certain that the agent has understood correctly? That the agent hasn’t been duped by a hoax call? You may be right that the law needs changing, Currently, proof of death is to the Returning Officers satisfaction, not yours, fortunately, there are ways of checking things. You do know, it can take weeks to get a death certificate, especially if there is a post-mortem involved. Plus people hoaxing people's death, you have a sick mind, and a great lack of trust in people, I honestly feel very sorry for your attitude towards life, if I am interpreting your attitude correctly, apologies if I'm not. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on May 7, 2023 6:15:37 GMT
Chris Twells was not standing in two places at once (Cotswolds and Salford) according to my understanding, unlike the Conservative in Winchester and Exeter this year. He was elected I think in Salford last year and the Cotswolds this year, and on election to Cotswold said that he would resign his seat in Salford. Rebecca Long-Bailey is playing politics.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on May 7, 2023 7:38:19 GMT
Chris Twells was not standing in two places at once (Cotswolds and Salford) according to my understanding, unlike the Conservative in Winchester and Exeter this year. He was elected I think in Salford last year and the Cotswolds this year, and on election to Cotswold said that he would resign his seat in Salford. Rebecca Long-Bailey is playing politics.
He should just have resigned his Salford seat before the Cotswold election. Presumably he had moved 'permanently' .
|
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,814
|
Post by iang on May 7, 2023 8:02:37 GMT
It seems inescapable that this was the reason for our poor performance in Salford after a rather good set of results in 2022
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on May 7, 2023 8:57:16 GMT
He also pretended that he was a "paper" candidate in Cotswold, whilst producing some rather lavish campaign literature.
|
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 7, 2023 11:01:42 GMT
When's the last time a poll can be countermanded? Presumably moments before the result is declared? The law says the poll must be abandoned if proof to the RO's satisfaction of the death of a candidate is given before the declaration of result. So could be after the close of the poll. *loses council election* *shoots winner before result is declared* *demands that election be countermanded* |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 7, 2023 11:07:24 GMT
The law says the poll must be abandoned if proof to the RO's satisfaction of the death of a candidate is given before the declaration of result. So could be after the close of the poll. *loses council election* *shoots winner before result is declared* *demands that election be countermanded* Read up on the case of Byron Low Tax Looper. |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on May 7, 2023 11:09:40 GMT
*loses council election* *shoots winner before result is declared* *demands that election be countermanded* Read up on the case of Byron Low Tax Looper. I remember that but I'd either forgotten or never learned that he'd died in prison. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435
|
Post by iain on May 7, 2023 11:31:42 GMT
He also pretended that he was a "paper" candidate in Cotswold, whilst producing some rather lavish campaign literature. I know the team down there, and he was a paper candidate. They didn’t expect to be anywhere near winning. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyhill on May 7, 2023 12:11:22 GMT
Whatever, it wasn't the case that Rebecca Long-Bailey was making.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 7, 2023 17:33:28 GMT
1. Who or what is RWNJ? 3. You’re still missing my point. Suppose a paramedic pronounces life extinct at the candidate’s home. What happens then? The paramedic phones the Returning Officer. How does the R.O. know that the phone call / is genuine? That the paramedic is a genuine paramedic, and not an impostor / hoaxer? Or the paramedic (or the family of the deceased) phones the party agent. The party agent phones the R.O. (or even tells the R.O. verbally at the count). How can the R.O. be certain that the agent has understood correctly? That the agent hasn’t been duped by a hoax call? You may be right that the law needs changing, Currently, proof of death is to the Returning Officers satisfaction, not yours, fortunately, there are ways of checking things. You do know, it can take weeks to get a death certificate, especially if there is a post-mortem involved. Plus people hoaxing people's death, you have a sick mind, and a great lack of trust in people, I honestly feel very sorry for your attitude towards life, if I am interpreting your attitude correctly, apologies if I'm not. ? I wasn't suggesting that anybody should make a hoax phone call about someone's death. I was suggesting the the inherent absurdity of the law allows a Returning Officer to have the flexibility to complete a count, on the pretext of not being certain that a candidate's death has been confirmed. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 8, 2023 16:18:40 GMT
Full list of forthcoming byelections:
4 May
Suffolk: Felixstowe Coastal. Cause: Death of Graham Newman (C) on 28 December 2022.
17 May
Stroud: Painswick and Upton. Cause: Resignation of Jason Bullingham (C) on 24 March 2023.
25 May
North Yorkshire: Eastfield. Cause: Resignation of Tony Randerson (Lab) on 3 April 2023.
1 June
Camden: South Hampstead. Cause: Resignation of Will Prince (Lab) on 13 April 2023.
8 June
Wiltshire: Tisbury. Cause: Resignation of Nick Errington (L Dem) on 28 March 2023.
13 June
St Albans: St Peters. Cause: Resignation of Danny Clare (L Dem) on 4 April 2023.
15 June
North Lanarkshire: Bellshill. Cause: Resignation of Jordan Linden (SNP) on 13 March 2023.
22 June
Stockton-on-Tees: Hartburn. TWO SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
Wyre: Warren. THREE SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
Unspecified
Bath and North East Somerset: Paulton. TWO SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
Bedford: Wyboston. Cause: Disqualification of Tom Wootton (C) on 9 May 2023.
East Sussex: Heathfield and Mayfield. Cause: Death of Rupert Simmons (C) on 17 April 2023.
Haringey: Hermitage and Gardens. Cause: Death of Julie Davies (Lab) on 27 April 2023.
Kent: Maidstone Central. Cause: Death of Dan Daley (L Dem) on 24 March 2023.
Norfolk: West Depwade. Cause: Death of Barry Duffin (C) on 9 April 2023.
Plymouth: Efford and Lipson. Cause: Death of Brian Vincent (Lab) on 17 April 2023.
Salford: Ordsall. Cause: Impending resignation of Chris Twells (L Dem).
Somerset: Castle Cary. Cause: Death of Mike Lewis (C) on 2 May 2023.
South Derbyshire: Hilton. THREE SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
South Lanarkshire: East Kilbride West. Cause: Resignation of Dr Ali Salamati (SNP) on 28 April 2023.
Southampton: Coxford. THREE SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
Sunderland: Hendon. Cause: Postponed poll.
Surrey Heath: Frimley Green. THREE SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
West Devon: Burrator. TWO SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
West Lancashire: Rural South. THREE SEATS. Cause: Postponed poll.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on May 8, 2023 19:11:48 GMT
The 4th May has passed. Is that a wrong date or did has the by election already happened?
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 5,743
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on May 8, 2023 19:13:53 GMT
The 4th May has passed. Is that a wrong date or did has the by election already happened? I presume it's included because they haven't yet announced the result - counting tomorrow. |
|
