Byelections 23 March 2017

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 26, 2017 13:43:09 GMT marksenior said:

Mar 26, 2017 13:20:42 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

No, Mark, it shouldn't, and you should know this fairly basic bit of electoral law. The RO has no power to reject a nomination that is valid on its face, nor to go investigating if some third party reports that a nominated candidate is ineligible. Rule 12 of the Parliamentary Election Rules.

The rules for Parliament and local authorities are not entirely in line but the key point is that the candidate's consent to nomination includes a declaration that the candidate knows of no reason why they are not qualified for election - rule 8 of the Parliamentary Election Rules.

That is not how I interpret Rule 12(2) and 12(3)

Then you have misinterpreted the rule. Rule 12 (2) gives three circumstances, and only three, in which the RO may hold a nomination paper invalid:

"(a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law" - in other words, the candidate is not actually named, or their address is incomplete.
"(b) that the paper is not subscribed as so required" - in other words, the paper does not contain the signatures of ten electors from the electoral area.
"(c) that the candidate is disqualified by the Representation of the People Act 1981" - this is the Bobby Sands law which provides that someone serving more than ten years (or who has escaped from such a sentence) is not allowed on the ballot paper.

That's it. Nothing about any other form of disqualification.

[Khunanup]

Mar 26, 2017 13:50:57 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Mar 26, 2017 13:43:09 GMT marksenior said:

That is not how I interpret Rule 12(2) and 12(3)

Then you have misinterpreted the rule. Rule 12 (2) gives three circumstances, and only three, in which the RO may hold a nomination paper invalid:

"(a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law" - in other words, the candidate is not actually named, or their address is incomplete.
"(b) that the paper is not subscribed as so required" - in other words, the paper does not contain the signatures of ten electors from the electoral area.
"(c) that the candidate is disqualified by the Representation of the People Act 1981" - this is the Bobby Sands law which provides that someone serving more than ten years (or who has escaped from such a sentence) is not allowed on the ballot paper.

That's it. Nothing about any other form of disqualification.

& 12 (3)?

On the pertinent point, under the situation mentioned in Warwickshire above it is almost certain that a councillor elected in Portsmouth in 2015 would have been disqualified should their employment status have been flagged up appropriately at the time (we were nowhere near in that ward so we only discovered the situation far too late).

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Mar 27, 2017 19:15:16 GMT Khunanup said:

Mar 26, 2017 13:50:57 GMT Davıd Boothroyd said:

Then you have misinterpreted the rule. Rule 12 (2) gives three circumstances, and only three, in which the RO may hold a nomination paper invalid:

"(a) that the particulars of the candidate or the persons subscribing the paper are not as required by law" - in other words, the candidate is not actually named, or their address is incomplete.
"(b) that the paper is not subscribed as so required" - in other words, the paper does not contain the signatures of ten electors from the electoral area.
"(c) that the candidate is disqualified by the Representation of the People Act 1981" - this is the Bobby Sands law which provides that someone serving more than ten years (or who has escaped from such a sentence) is not allowed on the ballot paper.

That's it. Nothing about any other form of disqualification.

& 12 (3)?

s. 12(3) simply gives the procedure for holding a nomination invalid:

(3) Subject to paragraph (3A), the returning officer shall give his decision on any objection to a nomination paper
(a)as soon as practicable after it is made, and
(b)in any event, before the end of the period of 24 hours starting with the close of the period for delivery of nomination papers set out in the Table in rule 1.

I wonder if it may be a mistaken reference for s. 12(3A), which covers the procedure when candidates are nominated with an unauthorised description (ie not that of a political party).

[marksenior]

Thanks for the clarification ( somewhat ) . To me there is still unresolved confusion between clear employment at first hand by the council and employment through sometimes tenuous 2nd and even 3rd hand employment not clearly related to the council involved .

[tonygreaves]

The point in Blackburn appears to be that Blackburn Council is the "accountable body" for this local quango and therefore technically the employer.