|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Nov 15, 2016 21:37:35 GMT
In a similar vein I've also seen marriage certificates with four or five witnesses (you only need two).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 22:11:59 GMT
Is there a reason as to why the Labour candidate has 3 sets of nominators and another candidate has 2 sets of nominators? Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. You might have got the wrong end of the stick, but it wasn't a dig at Labour just a genuine question as to why any candidate for that matter had chosen to get more than one set of nomination forms filled out. ------- Thanks to greenhert I had thought the same, it minimised mistakes, but would have presumed only one was needed. What sort of time scale is there between nomination forms being entered and being accepted? And once accepted by the returning officer as being valid, what likely hood of them being over turned or challenged as being invalid? I remember Winston Mckenzie and the London Mayoral forms, he was given many chances to correct them (But didn't in the end). So if a candidate had put them in and got them wrong, surely they would just correct them? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2016 22:18:00 GMT
On a separate point, if a candidate had placed their nominations and had been accepted as valid and then become invalid after nominations had closed, wouldn't they be able to make a legal challenge?
|
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Nov 15, 2016 22:23:15 GMT
Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. You might have got the wrong end of the stick, but it wasn't a dig at Labour just a genuine question as to why any candidate for that matter had chosen to get more than one set of nomination forms filled out. ------- Thanks to greenhert I had thought the same, it minimised mistakes, but would have presumed only one was needed. What sort of time scale is there between nomination forms being entered and being accepted? And once accepted by the returning officer as being valid, what likely hood of them being over turned or challenged as being invalid? I remember Winston Mckenzie and the London Mayoral forms, he was given many chances to correct them (But didn't in the end). So if a candidate had put them in and got them wrong, surely they would just correct them? Depends on the Returning Officer. Some are co-operative; some are bloody awkward. |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 15, 2016 22:32:36 GMT
Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. You might have got the wrong end of the stick, but it wasn't a dig at Labour just a genuine question as to why any candidate for that matter had chosen to get more than one set of nomination forms filled out. ------- Thanks to greenhert I had thought the same, it minimised mistakes, but would have presumed only one was needed. What sort of time scale is there between nomination forms being entered and being accepted? And once accepted by the returning officer as being valid, what likely hood of them being over turned or challenged as being invalid? I remember Winston Mckenzie and the London Mayoral forms, he was given many chances to correct them (But didn't in the end). So if a candidate had put them in and got them wrong, surely they would just correct them? No, I try not to pick up sticks on this forum - you never know where they've been  . The point is that you can do what you like - as others have posted it has a practical purpose but it used to have a political purpose too (maybe that is making a comeback) . For some reason most people who had in incorrect forms seem to do this when it is too late to do anything about it.... And then there is the question of whether it has been done accidentally or with a (rather stupidly) fraudulent motive. |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 15, 2016 22:43:44 GMT
Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. You might have got the wrong end of the stick, but it wasn't a dig at Labour just a genuine question as to why any candidate for that matter had chosen to get more than one set of nomination forms filled out. Only one set of ten nominators is needed, but in some necks of the woods more than one is supposedly taken as a sign of (campaigning) virility. I have seen local election candidates in rural English wards of 2,000 voters return lists of 30 or 40 nominators, all of which have to be put up on display at the polling places. I'm convinced in the 21st Century this impresses no-one but (perhaps) the other parties' campaigners. As was said above it used to be an "arms race". |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 15, 2016 23:20:33 GMT
I'd have thought the time spent getting all those extra people to sign your nomination form would be better used actually campaigning to win the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Nov 15, 2016 23:23:13 GMT
I'd have thought the time spent getting all those extra people to sign your nomination form would be better used actually campaigning to win the election. For Labour in Sleaford and North Hykeham? |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Nov 16, 2016 3:08:47 GMT
The first parliamentary by-election to have two candidates using no ballot paper description, I think. One of the least accurate statements you've ever posted on this Forum, doctorb!!! Before the Representation of the People Act 1969 no parliamentary, or other, elections had ballot paper descriptions. For a few decades previously there were party symbols on the ballot paper, admittedly. But for the vast majority of contested parliamentary by-elections ever held, none of the candidates will have been able to use a ballot paper description. Just taking the Preston constituency as an example, doctorb, there were no party descriptions on the ballot papers in the contested parliamentary by-elections in 1903, 1929, 1936 or 1946. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 16, 2016 6:17:07 GMT
Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. You might have got the wrong end of the stick, but it wasn't a dig at Labour just a genuine question as to why any candidate for that matter had chosen to get more than one set of nomination forms filled out. ------- Thanks to greenhert I had thought the same, it minimised mistakes, but would have presumed only one was needed. What sort of time scale is there between nomination forms being entered and being accepted? And once accepted by the returning officer as being valid, what likely hood of them being over turned or challenged as being invalid? I remember Winston Mckenzie and the London Mayoral forms, he was given many chances to correct them (But didn't in the end). So if a candidate had put them in and got them wrong, surely they would just correct them? There are some Returning Officers who think it is their job to be as pedantic and difficult as possible, and who are willing to jump on the slightest spelling mistake or typographical error or crossing-out as an excuse to reject an entire nomination. The timetable for handing in nomination papers is (iirc) four working days, usually Thu Fri Mon Tue from 10am to 4pm. Most R.O.s allow the nomination papers to be handed in unofficially, checked, and then (as long as no errors have been found) officially "submitted". It usually took me about 20 minutes or so to go through all the checking. But, as others have said, R.O.s in different areas can vary enormously in how useful, helpful or obstructive they want to be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2016 7:47:41 GMT
The first parliamentary by-election to have two candidates using no ballot paper description, I think. One of the least accurate statements you've ever posted on this Forum, doctorb!!! Before the Representation of the People Act 1969 no parliamentary, or other, elections had ballot paper descriptions. For a few decades previously there were party symbols on the ballot paper, admittedly. But for the vast majority of contested parliamentary by-elections ever held, none of the candidates will have been able to use a ballot paper description. Just taking the Preston constituency as an example, doctorb, there were no party descriptions on the ballot papers in the contested parliamentary by-elections in 1903, 1929, 1936 or 1946. This is what comes from being a young un *and* a young un who doesn't check what he's written before pressing "send"!  |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Nov 16, 2016 18:58:52 GMT
I'd have thought the time spent getting all those extra people to sign your nomination form would be better used actually campaigning to win the election. Speaking to people on the doorstep is campaigning. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 16, 2016 19:02:46 GMT
I'd have thought the time spent getting all those extra people to sign your nomination form would be better used actually campaigning to win the election. Speaking to people on the doorstep is campaigning. Persuading them to let you stand is not the same thing as persuading them to vote for you, though. It's far more effective to focus your efforts entirely on the latter. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 16, 2016 23:38:04 GMT
Speaking to people on the doorstep is campaigning. Persuading them to let you stand is not the same thing as persuading them to vote for you, though. It's far more effective to focus your efforts entirely on the latter. If they go to the effort of signing your nomination papers it's more likely they will actually vote for you, surely? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 16, 2016 23:53:37 GMT
Persuading them to let you stand is not the same thing as persuading them to vote for you, though. It's far more effective to focus your efforts entirely on the latter. If they go to the effort of signing your nomination papers it's more likely they will actually vote for you, surely? Not necessarily. If you're after nomination signatures on the doorstep, you have a much easier time if you point out that they aren't promising to vote for you. If you're after voters, and just get signatures from those who are voting for you anyway it's one extra ask, possibly replacing something that would actively help win over other voters. |
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,788 
|
Post by john07 on Nov 19, 2016 2:12:20 GMT
Because the Labour candidate went out and got 3 sets of nominators and the other person only went and got two... Sorry. But seriously folks, you can have as many as you like. I'm not sure when this tailed off but certainly before WWII, the press was always full of reports of local arms races between candidates of who could get more lists of nominators.. Indeed. The record was in Northern Ireland where thousands of people used to sign nomination papers. Indeed. In Northern Ireland if you were late signing nomination papers, someone else may have already signed them in your name! Nominate early, nominate often. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,777
|
Post by right on Nov 19, 2016 18:13:18 GMT
I'd have thought the time spent getting all those extra people to sign your nomination form would be better used actually campaigning to win the election. It's a good way to get your local party members to think that they have a stake in the campaign. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2016 14:57:38 GMT
Writ was moved today so polling will be 8 December. First time there will have been parliamentary by-elections in consecutive weeks since 1990, if my quick scan of dates is right. Upper Bann, 17 May 1990, UUP Hold. Bootle, 24 May 1990, Labour Hold. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,925
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 27, 2016 15:19:37 GMT
You have to go back to May/June 1982 for two GB by-elections on consecutive Thursdays (Beaconsfield/Mitcham&Morden)
|
|
|
|
Post by tonygreaves on Nov 29, 2016 16:33:21 GMT
In Parliamentary elections they publish three lists of nominators/assentors. Including on the notices they stick up at the polling stations.
Tony
|
|
. The point is that you can do what you like - as others have posted it has a practical purpose but it used to have a political purpose too (maybe that is making a comeback) . For some reason most people who had in incorrect forms seem to do this when it is too late to do anything about it.... And then there is the question of whether it has been done accidentally or with a (rather stupidly) fraudulent motive. 
