The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,931
|
Post by The Bishop on Apr 18, 2017 15:52:07 GMT
Genuine question - do Labour have the votes to do that on their own, given most other opposition parties (certainly the SNP and LibDems) have supported an early election?
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Apr 18, 2017 15:53:18 GMT
That is a foolish remark. This is not a matter of competency but of happenstance. At times events coincide and due process makes a nonsense of normal habits. It is rare and of no consequence to politics or the nation except in one place. Even there it will affect less than 10% of the population at all. It is one of those things where process may appear to be a nonsense, but better than giving a person or an office the power to stop elections as that could be abused. It is the job of Prime Ministers to anticipate consequences of their decisions. This one potentially puts the Gorton by-election into chaos and wastes a good deal of money. If Theresa May was competent she would have engineered the election for 4th May to save some money in our straightened economic times. Alternatively she could have nominated 15th June as polling day in her speech today, which would have avoided the question. But I presume the announcement the day after Easter and the timetable is all part of a calculation of electoral advantage. It is not the first time she has shown lack of competence - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-faces-parliamentary-investigation-over-flimsy-basis-for-student-deportations-a6948796.htmlAnyway, Parliament has the power to stop this election tomorrow by simply abstaining. That would be the constitutional thing to do given the FTPA and the Labour Party are crazy not to be doing it. That would expose Theresa's hubris and force her either to appear like Erdogan by changing the law to suit herself, or call a vote of no confidence in her own government, which everyone could enthusiastically support! In national terms the Gorton by election is of no account whatsoever and you are being foolish to witter on about it. The calling of an election has many consequences for many people. It ends careers early, brings forward retirements, brings forward candidatures and stall others. It disrupts legislation, loses acts, undoes lots of work, affects friends and families, cancels medical interventions and holidays, sets back books and cancels lectures. And you are concerned at a by-election being cancelled but with the opportunity for the same people to vote one month later. Strange chap! |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,435 
|
Post by iain on Apr 18, 2017 15:54:07 GMT
Genuine question - do Labour have the votes to do that on their own, given most other opposition parties (certainly the SNP and LibDems) have supported an early election? Yes, believe 434 MPs have to vote for dissolution. |
|
|
|
Post by warofdreams on Apr 18, 2017 16:03:40 GMT
Genuine question - do Labour have the votes to do that on their own, given most other opposition parties (certainly the SNP and LibDems) have supported an early election? Yes, believe 434 MPs have to vote for dissolution. Yes, 434 - the Fixed Term Parliaments Act states "...if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats)." |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Apr 18, 2017 16:13:36 GMT
Someone on PB said that abandoning a by-election at the moment of dissolution is *not* covered by law, but was an ad-hoc decision by the R.O. when it last happened in 1924. If true, it would be theoretically possible for the R.O. to allow the by-election in Gorton to be concluded anyway. Can Davıd Boothroyd confirm? |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 18, 2017 16:29:18 GMT
According to The Times (14 November 1923, p. 14) the Home Office sent a telegram to the Returning Officer in Warwick and Leamington to tell him the byelection arrangements should be cancelled.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 18, 2017 16:39:27 GMT
Yes, believe 434 MPs have to vote for dissolution. Yes, 434 - the Fixed Term Parliaments Act states "...if the motion is passed on a division, the number of members who vote in favour of the motion is a number equal to or greater than two thirds of the number of seats in the House (including vacant seats)." I am sure that quite a number of MPs on all sides will be on holiday this week as well (given it is the school holidays) It looks like pairing would not apply in this vote - they actually have to turn up I think. It is possible that a rebellion by a proportion of Labour MPs could scupper it |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 18, 2017 16:42:23 GMT
It is the job of Prime Ministers to anticipate consequences of their decisions. This one potentially puts the Gorton by-election into chaos and wastes a good deal of money. If Theresa May was competent she would have engineered the election for 4th May to save some money in our straightened economic times. Alternatively she could have nominated 15th June as polling day in her speech today, which would have avoided the question. But I presume the announcement the day after Easter and the timetable is all part of a calculation of electoral advantage. It is not the first time she has shown lack of competence - www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-faces-parliamentary-investigation-over-flimsy-basis-for-student-deportations-a6948796.htmlAnyway, Parliament has the power to stop this election tomorrow by simply abstaining. That would be the constitutional thing to do given the FTPA and the Labour Party are crazy not to be doing it. That would expose Theresa's hubris and force her either to appear like Erdogan by changing the law to suit herself, or call a vote of no confidence in her own government, which everyone could enthusiastically support! In national terms the Gorton by election is of no account whatsoever and you are being foolish to witter on about it. The calling of an election has many consequences for many people. It ends careers early, brings forward retirements, brings forward candidatures and stall others. It disrupts legislation, loses acts, undoes lots of work, affects friends and families, cancels medical interventions and holidays, sets back books and cancels lectures. And you are concerned at a by-election being cancelled but with the opportunity for the same people to vote one month later. Strange chap! Ok Carlton, many other grounds why it should not have been called! Glad you agree! |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 18, 2017 17:31:01 GMT
How do moneys spent on the by-election count against expenditure limits for the GE?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 18, 2017 17:54:28 GMT
How do moneys spent on the by-election count against expenditure limits for the GE? Well, that is an interesting question, since the total allowed spend in one constituency in a General election is far less than in a by-election (£100k) In a GE, there is the long campaign, which we would be in now for a General election on 8th June. The total in that period is £30.7k plus 6p per elector (maybe £35k). It is likely that both Labour and the Lib Dems have already spent more that that. Then there is the short campaign that would begin on the day that Parliament is dissolved. The spending there is only about £13k... I imagine the electoral commission would have to declare the spending to date void, but who knows?? Meanwhile is this the real reason for the panic General Election? Would make Erdogan look like a novice... www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/03/70000-question-what-does-conservative-party-election-expenses-scandal |
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 18, 2017 18:00:48 GMT
How do moneys spent on the by-election count against expenditure limits for the GE? Well, that is an interesting question, since the total allowed spend in one constituency in a General election is far less than in a by-election (£100k) In a GE, there is the long campaign, which we would be in now for a General election on 8th June. The total in that period is £30.7k plus 6p per elector (maybe £35k). It is likely that both Labour and the Lib Dems have already spent more that that. Then there is the short campaign that would begin on the day that Parliament is dissolved. The spending there is only about £13k... I imagine the electoral commission would have to declare the spending to date void, but who knows?? Meanwhile is this the real reason for the panic General Election? Would make Erdogan look like a novice... www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/03/70000-question-what-does-conservative-party-election-expenses-scandalThe concept of a "long campaign" only really works if you have a Fixed Term Parliament, when you know the date in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 18, 2017 18:13:51 GMT
If it goes ahead I cannot think of any better use of LD resources than going all out to win Gorton, and for the electorate the temptation to make a point could hardly be greater as maybe there would be no long term consequences. Except that the Gorton result, if it still happens, will be simply one result amongst thousands on the day. A shock Lib Dem win in Gorton would be significant news if it was a standalone result, but would make far less impact if announced alongside all those council and regional mayor results. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 18, 2017 18:33:37 GMT
Well, that is an interesting question, since the total allowed spend in one constituency in a General election is far less than in a by-election (£100k) In a GE, there is the long campaign, which we would be in now for a General election on 8th June. The total in that period is £30.7k plus 6p per elector (maybe £35k). It is likely that both Labour and the Lib Dems have already spent more that that. Then there is the short campaign that would begin on the day that Parliament is dissolved. The spending there is only about £13k... I imagine the electoral commission would have to declare the spending to date void, but who knows?? Meanwhile is this the real reason for the panic General Election? Would make Erdogan look like a novice... www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2017/03/70000-question-what-does-conservative-party-election-expenses-scandalThe concept of a "long campaign" only really works if you have a Fixed Term Parliament, when you know the date in advance. Indeed, and it does seem that this election has taken even Tory activists by surprise (hence the whiff of panic....). It will be pretty hard for any party to spend £30k in the next two weeks from a standing start, so this could be a bit of an old fashioned General Election in marginal seats (I was living in Pudsey in the last election and there is no doubt both Tories and Labour maxed their long campaign spending on leaflets) If the Parties have been targeting their constituencies effectively in the run up to the County elections, that might help them |
|
Richard Allen
Banned
Four time loser in VUKPOTY finals
Posts: 19,052
|
Post by Richard Allen on Apr 18, 2017 18:34:03 GMT
Yes, believe 434 MPs have to vote for dissolution. Does there have to be a division? What if no MP yells "No"? The FTPA says "if a motion is passed on a division" which implies that such a motion can be passed without a division if no MP objects (or if only one MP is willing to act as a teller for the No) as is standard practice in the House. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Apr 18, 2017 18:35:56 GMT
Yes, believe 434 MPs have to vote for dissolution. Does there have to be a division? What if no MP yells "No"? I think not, but I would expect at least one NI MP to yell "no" given how inappropriate another divisive election is for N Ireland at this moment (The NI MPs may not see it that way however!) |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,780
|
Post by right on Apr 18, 2017 19:02:38 GMT
Reading in the General Politics forum that the dissolution is for May 3rd which would be a day before the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Apr 18, 2017 19:11:36 GMT
I'm going to try doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ 's patience even further by mentioning that the last private battle in England was fought in 1469 (right in the middle of the Wars of the Roses, but nothing to do with them) at Nibley Green in Gloucestershire, and that the main source of information about it is the civil law case which the loser's mother brought against the victor and several of his supporters, even though the plaintiff's (deceased) son had freely agreed to the battle. (She got damages, but the defendant got to hang on to Berkeley Castle, which was the point of the affair.) Back then the idea that law had no relevance to war and that anything went was not accepted. But then they were more civilised than we are. The battle was fought over an entail and when I first read about it, it struck me that Pride and Prejudice would have been a very different story if written 300 years earlier. According to the Wiki article he was the one that proposed the battle. There is a C15th document in Berkeley Castle which purports to give the texts of the challenge and reply. In it, he challenged Berkeley to single combat or failing that battle, and Berkeley replied opting for battle. Or in modern English: "Right! You! Outside!" "Yeah? You and whose army?" etc and so on. However P Fleming and M Wood ("Gloucestershire's Forgotten Battle" Tempus Publishing 2003) point out that the challenge was supposedly sent, returned, and battle joined within 24 hours, and some of the addresses of known participants on the Berkeley side mean that they would have struggled to get there within that time, suggesting that they were already in the castle and ready for a fight. So perhaps 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. (Quite an interesting list of participants, one of them was a painter from Bristol, a couple of others came from my immediate neighbourhood.) |
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Apr 18, 2017 20:36:57 GMT
Someone on PB said that abandoning a by-election at the moment of dissolution is *not* covered by law, but was an ad-hoc decision by the R.O. when it last happened in 1924. If true, it would be theoretically possible for the R.O. to allow the by-election in Gorton to be concluded anyway. Can Davıd Boothroyd confirm? In the Commons this afternoon, David Lidington said that if Parliament is dissolved prior to 4 May, it does not immediately cancel or supercede the Gorton by-election, but that it is up to the Returning Officer to cancel it at his whim (I slightly paraphrase) I cannot really believe that a dissolution of Parliament does not supercede an issued writ to that Parliament, and I cannot really believe the Electoral Services Officer of Manchester City Council has the right to cancel a Parliamentary election, mid-election, for which the writ has been issued. Informed views welcomed. |
|
Khunanup
Lib Dem
Portsmouth Liberal Democrats
Posts: 12,014
|
Post by Khunanup on Apr 18, 2017 21:22:07 GMT
Someone on PB said that abandoning a by-election at the moment of dissolution is *not* covered by law, but was an ad-hoc decision by the R.O. when it last happened in 1924. If true, it would be theoretically possible for the R.O. to allow the by-election in Gorton to be concluded anyway. Can Davıd Boothroyd confirm? In the Commons this afternoon, David Lidington said that if Parliament is dissolved prior to 4 May, it does not immediately cancel or supercede the Gorton by-election, but that it is up to the Returning Officer to cancel it at his whim (I slightly paraphrase) I cannot really believe that a dissolution of Parliament does not supercede an issued writ to that Parliament, and I cannot really believe the Electoral Services Officer of Manchester City Council has the right to cancel a Parliamentary election, mid-election, for which the writ has been issued. Informed views welcomed. We need your ruling Davıd Boothroyd What's going on? |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Apr 18, 2017 21:26:10 GMT
I would think just in terms of not wasting taxpayers money it should be postponed for 5 weeks!
|
|
