Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 23:37:37 GMT
I feel a thread coming on....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 5, 2017 23:43:11 GMT
...and I've started a "Calling by-elections thread"
|
|
|
|
Post by ideal4radio on Jan 6, 2017 3:18:27 GMT
I've been toying with the idea of a quarter day, ie: the first Thursdays in May, August, November & February are the dates used for any by elections.... parish,town,Borough,Unitary,County,Metropolitan,Devolved Parliaments all the way up to Westminster.
If a vacancy occurs more than 49 days prior to the next quarter day, then the by-election is held on the next quarter day. The election is announced 10 days after the vacancy occurs, which should always give a minimum of 3 weeks or so to campaign, once nominations have closed.
No messing around by parties, people not left unrepresented, & hopefully increased turnouts as people get used to the quarter-day system. Since 2010, there's been an average of c 280 local by-elections per annum, so that would mean we'd have the local elections in May,with any by-elections that may be due, plus three other mini "Election nights", with an average of 70 or so By-elections each...
Any thoughts ??
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 6, 2017 3:21:02 GMT
I've been toying with the idea of a quarter day, ie: the first Thursdays in May, August, November & February are the dates used for any by elections.... parish,town,Borough,Unitary,County,Metropolitan,Devolved Parliaments all the way up to Westminster. If a vacancy occurs more than 49 days prior to the next quarter day, then the by-election is held on the next quarter day. The election is announced 10 days after the vacancy occurs, which should always give a minimum of 3 weeks or so to campaign, once nominations have closed. No messing around by parties, people not left unrepresented, & hopefully increased turnouts as people get used to the quarter-day system. Since 2010, there's been an average of c 280 local by-elections per annum, so that would mean we'd have the local elections in May,with any by-elections that may be due, plus three other mini "Election nights", with an average of 70 or so By-elections each... Any thoughts ?? What about our weekly competition for forecasting results? |
|
johnr
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 1,944 
|
Post by johnr on Jan 6, 2017 10:22:45 GMT
I've been toying with the idea of a quarter day, ie: the first Thursdays in May, August, November & February are the dates used for any by elections.... parish,town,Borough,Unitary,County,Metropolitan,Devolved Parliaments all the way up to Westminster. If a vacancy occurs more than 49 days prior to the next quarter day, then the by-election is held on the next quarter day. The election is announced 10 days after the vacancy occurs, which should always give a minimum of 3 weeks or so to campaign, once nominations have closed. No messing around by parties, people not left unrepresented, & hopefully increased turnouts as people get used to the quarter-day system. Since 2010, there's been an average of c 280 local by-elections per annum, so that would mean we'd have the local elections in May,with any by-elections that may be due, plus three other mini "Election nights", with an average of 70 or so By-elections each... Any thoughts ?? I quite like the sound of that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 6, 2017 11:44:16 GMT
I've been toying with the idea of a quarter day, ie: the first Thursdays in May, August, November & February are the dates used for any by elections.... parish,town,Borough,Unitary,County,Metropolitan,Devolved Parliaments all the way up to Westminster. If a vacancy occurs more than 49 days prior to the next quarter day, then the by-election is held on the next quarter day. The election is announced 10 days after the vacancy occurs, which should always give a minimum of 3 weeks or so to campaign, once nominations have closed. No messing around by parties, people not left unrepresented, & hopefully increased turnouts as people get used to the quarter-day system. Since 2010, there's been an average of c 280 local by-elections per annum, so that would mean we'd have the local elections in May,with any by-elections that may be due, plus three other mini "Election nights", with an average of 70 or so By-elections each... Any thoughts ?? What about our weekly competition for forecasting results? Yes, it would greatly decrease the entertainment value of this site! I suspect the inclination of people to tell us all these interesting things about random council wards up and down the Uk would be greatly lessened if they had to do 70 + at a time, and it would become just the global picture we get on local election day.. Since I have also argued on this site that 3 months is too long to leave an area without parliamentary representation, and quarter days would delay some by-elections by at least 4 months (since the nomination process etc could not be truncated), then I would be opposed on those grounds as well |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 6, 2017 11:49:10 GMT
What about our weekly competition for forecasting results? Yes, it would greatly decrease the entertainment value of this site! I suspect the inclination of people to tell us all these interesting things about random council wards up and down the Uk would be greatly lessened if they had to do 70 + at a time, and it would become just the global picture we get on local election day.. Since I have also argued on this site that 3 months is too long to leave an area without parliamentary representation, and quarter days would delay some by-elections by at least 4 months (since the nomination process etc could not be truncated), then I would be opposed on those grounds as well But still we do have the 6 month rule, before anyone points that out! I am not all that keen on that either... A quarter day in early August would not improve turnout I suspect! And in general I don't think these days would get enough publicity to improve turnout - after all it would still be a rare event to get a local by-election in any ward (exception: Carlisle) |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 6, 2017 12:17:53 GMT
I've been toying with the idea of a quarter day, ie: the first Thursdays in May, August, November & February are the dates used for any by elections.... parish,town,Borough,Unitary,County,Metropolitan,Devolved Parliaments all the way up to Westminster. If a vacancy occurs more than 49 days prior to the next quarter day, then the by-election is held on the next quarter day. The election is announced 10 days after the vacancy occurs, which should always give a minimum of 3 weeks or so to campaign, once nominations have closed. No messing around by parties, people not left unrepresented, & hopefully increased turnouts as people get used to the quarter-day system. Since 2010, there's been an average of c 280 local by-elections per annum, so that would mean we'd have the local elections in May,with any by-elections that may be due, plus three other mini "Election nights", with an average of 70 or so By-elections each... Any thoughts ?? Just no. Just have sensible limits - no less than x weeks, no more than y. |
|
markf
Non-Aligned
a victim of IDS
Posts: 318
|
Post by markf on Jan 6, 2017 14:04:18 GMT
 I think it will be a Conservative win in Copeland
|
|
|
|
Post by justin124 on Jan 6, 2017 14:07:26 GMT
Today’s Yougov poll giving the Tories a GB lead of 13% would imply that Copeland is neck and neck – Labour would hold by 0.1%!
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,812
|
Post by right on Jan 6, 2017 22:50:41 GMT
I think it will be a Conservative win in Copeland If they lose this then Corbyn would have to go. No. Sorry. I was thinking of a rational party that wanted to win government. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 6, 2017 23:26:49 GMT
At this stage 45 plays 21 in our poll, so the Forum wisdom firmly suggests a Labour hold. I am surprised it is not closer and that so many people postulate a good hold.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,441
|
Copeland
Jan 6, 2017 23:45:50 GMT
via mobile
Post by iain on Jan 6, 2017 23:45:50 GMT
I can't see the government going anywhere other than backwards, so Labour would have to do extraordinarily badly to lose enough vote share to lose the seat. I think that both parties will be down a little, around the same amount.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 7, 2017 0:57:06 GMT
I think it will be a Conservative win in Copeland If they lose this then Corbyn would have to go. No. Sorry. I was thinking of a rational party that wanted to win government. Corbyn is losing the bloggers en masse, they have more clout then the PLP |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,312
Member is Online
|
Post by maxque on Jan 7, 2017 4:17:39 GMT
I think it will be a Conservative win in Copeland If they lose this then Corbyn would have to go. No. Sorry. I was thinking of a rational party that wanted to win government. Well, the sane option last time was to vote for Corbyn, as there is no way Owen Smith would win government. Corbyn should be replaced by someone competent and likeable, not a Big Pharma lobbyist. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,812
|
Post by right on Jan 7, 2017 8:12:46 GMT
At this stage 45 plays 21 in our poll, so the Forum wisdom firmly suggests a Labour hold. I am surprised it is not closer and that so many people postulate a good hold. A good hold means getting a bit more than the General Election. There is no sign of a third party getting traction and so this is a government vs someone else by-election. In about 90% of government vs someone else by-elections since around the 1960s the government has lost ground. So those predicting a good hold are predicting that this will be like 90% of similar by-elections for the last 50 years, ignore the local colour. |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Jan 7, 2017 9:17:32 GMT
If they lose this then Corbyn would have to go. No. Sorry. I was thinking of a rational party that wanted to win government. Well, the sane option last time was to vote for Corbyn, as there is no way Owen Smith would win government. Corbyn should be replaced by someone competent and likeable, not a Big Pharma lobbyist. Jesus of Nazareth was not in fact available as a candidate. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Jan 7, 2017 11:36:31 GMT
At this stage 45 plays 21 in our poll, so the Forum wisdom firmly suggests a Labour hold. I am surprised it is not closer and that so many people postulate a good hold. A good hold means getting a bit more than the General Election. There is no sign of a third party getting traction and so this is a government vs someone else by-election. In about 90% of government vs someone else by-elections since around the 1960s the government has lost ground. So those predicting a good hold are predicting that this will be like 90% of similar by-elections for the last 50 years, ignore the local colour. Yes, but 90% of by-elections are held with the opposition miles ahead in the polls, not miles behind compared to the last election! |
|
|
|
Copeland
Jan 7, 2017 11:44:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by andrew111 on Jan 7, 2017 11:44:16 GMT
A good hold means getting a bit more than the General Election. There is no sign of a third party getting traction and so this is a government vs someone else by-election. In about 90% of government vs someone else by-elections since around the 1960s the government has lost ground. So those predicting a good hold are predicting that this will be like 90% of similar by-elections for the last 50 years, ignore the local colour. Yes, but 90% of by-elections are held with the opposition miles ahead in the polls, not miles behind compared to the last election! However if Labour can manage to select a respected local candidate and make the by-election about the NHS, they should hold... 3rd and 4th parties will not win but they may have an unpredictable effect.. I have no idea what the UKIP vote will do, but if it drops it will probably hurt Labour. Lib Dem vote will probably go up a few % and I think that will also hurt Labour, but not as much.. I do not see the Labour % majority going up here unless their candidate is personally good enough to attract Tory voters.. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 7, 2017 11:47:39 GMT
A good hold means getting a bit more than the General Election. There is no sign of a third party getting traction and so this is a government vs someone else by-election. In about 90% of government vs someone else by-elections since around the 1960s the government has lost ground. So those predicting a good hold are predicting that this will be like 90% of similar by-elections for the last 50 years, ignore the local colour. Yes, but 90% of by-elections are held with the opposition miles ahead in the polls, not miles behind compared to the last election! Correct Andrew. The Labour Party are probably less popular than the Conservatives in this constituency already. It will all be down to choice of candidate. That will be important for Conservative fortunes but for Labour of absolute pivotal importance if they are to hold the seat. For labour to win this needs to be a superb campaign fought on exactly the right policies and with verve, coupled with brilliant candidate. A good old boy local ex-Labour standing for UKIP might also help a bit? |
|
I think it will be a Conservative win in Copeland
