Calling by-elections

[peterl]

If we had a timetable written down and executed by a single person (Let’s say the natural Speaker) we wouldn’t have these allegations.

I agree with this. This timetable already exists in local government and could be adapted for use in Parliamentary by elections. I suppose for that matter, the timing could be left solely to the returning officer and keep politicians out of the process of deciding the date altogether, same as in local government, but the speaker does seem a natural choice for an impartial figure to decide the date.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 6, 2017 13:03:30 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

Jan 6, 2017 9:41:06 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

All this rushing into this thread may give the impression that there's some kind of problem with the way things work now. I venture to suggest that there really isn't.

I think you’ve just contradicted your point.

There have been complaints by some that some by-elections are called too quickly, and complaints by some others that some are called too slowly.

If we had a timetable written down and executed by a single person (Let’s say the natural Speaker) we wouldn’t have these allegations.

Non sequitur.

[LDCaerdydd]

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

[lennon]

Jan 6, 2017 13:25:09 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

Theoretically at least - you could have a fixed timetable and you would still have some people complaining that it was too long, and others that it was too short.

The argument as I see it really is if you should have a variable option, or a fixed option. (Variable = flexible to account for different circumstances; Fixed = known and not able to be used for party advantage)

Edit: Personally I would like to increase the time between 'writ issued' and 'nominations in' for both local and national by-elections - but obviously I would say that as it is small parties that struggle to find candidates / get nominations forms sorted etc. I would also like to remove the nominations requirement - but again that will inevitably (and reasonably) be seen as trying to advantage smaller parties / Independents.

[peterl]

It would certainly be possible to provide for instance that in the event of a death, the timetable starts on the date after the funeral, but in the event of a resignation has effect upon notification to the speaker.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 6, 2017 13:25:09 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

The fact that people have made complaints is neither here nor there because I don't think the complaints are justified. People complain about anything under the sun, all the time (have you forgotten you live in Britain?).

[LDCaerdydd]

Jan 6, 2017 14:19:26 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jan 6, 2017 13:25:09 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

The fact that people have made complaints is neither here nor there because I don't think the complaints are justified. People complain about anything under the sun, all the time (have you forgotten you live in Britain?).

People complain about everything all the time I know that.

But surely even you David have to admit that the current gentleman's agreement between whips about who calls a by-election is far from best practice and that the fact that the timing of the moving of the writs are left to the party defending the seat who will naturally play the system to their advantage is somewhat farcical?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

No, I don't have to admit that at all. I think the system works in a perfectly adequate way.

[Deleted]

In all my experience of VoteUK forums, Davıd Boothroyd has been the most sincere and steadfast in his belief that the current system works, not just with the administration of by-elections, but with much of the UK "constitution". A small-c conservative, if he allows me that description.

[gwynthegriff]

Jan 6, 2017 16:48:58 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

No, I don't have to admit that at all. I think the system works in a perfectly adequate way.

Would you extend the parliamentary approach to local government?

[johnloony]

Jan 6, 2017 13:25:09 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

The non-sequitur is in your assumption that having a standard timetable would satisfy the people who complain about the timing being too quick or too slow.

[LDCaerdydd]

Jan 6, 2017 19:50:53 GMT johnloony said:

Jan 6, 2017 13:25:09 GMT LDCaerdydd said:

You said you don't think there's a problem with the current system.

You then highlighted complaints about them being called too quickly.

Several people in this board have suggested some are called too slowly.

I think that means there is a problem. But each to their own.

The non-sequitur is in your assumption that having a standard timetable would satisfy the people who complain about the timing being too quick or too slow.

I can assure you that as a Lib Dem I know you'll never satisfy everyone and in a room full of opinionated people you'll get more opinions than people!

I think the fact that there's no timetable for triggering a by-election is ridiculous. As I said earlier, the good folk of Witney went around five weeks without an MP. The residents of both Eastbourne and Batley have in the last generation both had their MPs assassinated. The different timescale between the two was inconsistent and in the later I personally think unacceptable.

[thirdchill]

Have a maximum limit of 6 months and no minimum. That is all that is really necessary and would at most affect a very small number of by- elections. Nothing else is necessary.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I'm not opposed to a change, but I don't think we've established that a long vacancy in a seat really is that much of a problem.

In terms of casework, when an MP can't fulfil their duties for reasons of illness or other unavoidable absence, a neighbouring MP of the same party normally picks up their casework. Obviously there isn't always a neighbouring MP of the same party, but most casework doesn't take too much account of parties and that which does can always be referred to a slightly more distant MP. And quite a lot of it can be picked up by local councillors anyway, as a lot of it falls within their remit anyway. Is there any evidence that this part of the job was not being done and caused major problems in Batley & Spen?

In terms of not having an MP to vote on your behalf in parliament, I think the problem is entirely illusory. If it's close enough to matter, you better believe the by-election will be called quickly. If it isn't, it's hard to see the substantive harm caused by the vacancy.

[piperdave]

If the conventions for the House of Commons are perfectly good and democratic and all that jazz, why do MPs never pass on those conventions to any other democratic chamber they create? Why does HM Government always write the legislation for councils and devolved legislatures to permit resignation by letter, to require vaacancies to be filled within a set period, without the issuing of writs for general elections?

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Don't accept the premise of the question. The rules for local government don't require vacancies to be filled within a set period. And in most councils, there's an unwritten understanding that the party which held the seat will be the one which sends in the letter triggering the byelection.

[piperdave]

Jan 12, 2017 0:08:37 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Don't accept the premise of the question. The rules for local government don't require vacancies to be filled within a set period. And in most councils, there's an unwritten understanding that the party which held the seat will be the one which sends in the letter triggering the byelection.

Not for viewers in Scotland. A poll must be held within three months of a vacancy arising, unless the six month rule applies. And the Returning Officer is responsible for setting the date.

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Jan 12, 2017 18:35:18 GMT piperdave said:

Jan 12, 2017 0:08:37 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Don't accept the premise of the question. The rules for local government don't require vacancies to be filled within a set period. And in most councils, there's an unwritten understanding that the party which held the seat will be the one which sends in the letter triggering the byelection.

Not for viewers in Scotland. A poll must be held within three months of a vacancy arising, unless the six month rule applies. And the Returning Officer is responsible for setting the date.

Indeed, but doesn't that support my overall argument?

Local government is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. If there's vacancy in a Scottish Parliament constituency seat, it's the Presiding Officer who names the day. Under the Scotland Act 1998 s. 9 the date has to be within three month of the vacancy arising. So the Scottish Parliament has in fact applied to local government the same provisions as apply to itself.

[piperdave]

Jan 12, 2017 18:57:05 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Jan 12, 2017 18:35:18 GMT piperdave said:

Not for viewers in Scotland. A poll must be held within three months of a vacancy arising, unless the six month rule applies. And the Returning Officer is responsible for setting the date.

Indeed, but doesn't that support my overall argument?

Local government is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. If there's vacancy in a Scottish Parliament constituency seat, it's the Presiding Officer who names the day. Under the Scotland Act 1998 s. 9 the date has to be within three month of the vacancy arising. So the Scottish Parliament has in fact applied to local government the same provisions as apply to itself.

Except the Scottish Parliament didn't exist when those provisions were included in section 37 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973(link as enacted) and passed by the Commons and the Lords.

[gwynthegriff]

Jan 12, 2017 0:08:37 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Don't accept the premise of the question. The rules for local government don't require vacancies to be filled within a set period. And in most councils, there's an unwritten understanding that the party which held the seat will be the one which sends in the letter triggering the byelection*.

At Parish Council level:

Councillor dies, resigns etc
Council notices
Is required to "forthwith" declare the vacancy
Advertises the vacancy
If "called" by 10 electors, must be held within 60 days of declaration of vacancy.

So, sort of ...


* Not round here!