
From the picture above it seems that the LibDems have already jumped on Recess Monkey’s exposure of Bob Neill’s invalidation as a parliamentary candidate.
UKIP also seems to be so impressed with the Recess Monkey piece that they are pretending it was written by UKIP leadership candidate Richard Suchorzewski. Readers may be surprised to learn that Richard Suchorzewski does not write for Recess Monkey.
However, most damaging for Bob Neill it this piece in The Telegraph, in which barrister Bob says, “I took legal advice when I signed the form”.
Hang on, isn’t this an admission that Bob knowingly signed a false declaration that he was eligible to stand rather than making an honest mistake?
UKIP is already threatening to launch an election petition should Bob win on Thursday. But what will the Bar Council say about Bob’s confessed and deliberate disregard of the law? The Bar Council complaints form can be found here - if anyone’s interested.
You’re going down Bob.
editor[at]recessmonkey.com





From ‘The Conservative Agents Election Manual’ -
“This subject is fully dealt with in ‘Parkers Conduct of Parliamentary Elections’, and every Agent should be well aware of the rules regarding votes thrown away and the method of giving notice of disqualification.
“For the purpose of these notes it is sufficient to warn Agents about the need for the following correct procedure.
“If it appears certain that a candidate is in some way disqualified to sit as a Member of Parliament, steps can be taken to inform the electorate before the opening of the poll taht votes given to him are “votes thrown away”. If the disqualification is proved on petition the candidate next on the poll, though with a minority of the votes cast, may be declared elected.
“If no such notice is given before the opening of the poll, the candidate next on the poll cannot claim the seat, The disqualified candidate can be unseated, but there must be a fresh election.”
Anonymous said this on June 26th, 2006 at 10:28 am
They should have run with ‘POLL BLOW FOR ‘3 JOBS’ and folded them vertically
Sam said this on June 26th, 2006 at 10:35 am
That headline actually relates to a different story - the tabloid was printed last week, but I like your thinking
Rob said this on June 26th, 2006 at 10:40 am
“A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said that only the death of a monarch could halt a by-election once it had been called. It was open to aggrieved parties to petition to overturn the result.”
Er..are we really relying on the Electoral Commission for an authorative view on this. The death of a candidate can also stop a by-election. Glad to see that the guardians of electoral law know their stuff …not!
Peter Black said this on June 26th, 2006 at 10:42 am
Glad we were able to help get the word out yesterday. Yes, RM was the original source via something of a chain for the Torygraph story.
Tim Worstall said this on June 26th, 2006 at 11:55 am
the death of a candidate CAN stop a by-election, but does not have to, as with any election. A Labour candidate died in a local election three years ago and his name was withdrawn, but the difference was he died two days before the nominations closed. In that case I would have preferred his name to remain. there is no bar to voitng for a dead person.
janestheone said this on June 26th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
No that is not quite right. The election proceeded as nominations had not closed. If the candidate had died after the close of nominations then the election would have been re-reun as happened in, I think, Shropshire, during the General Election. You cannot in fact vote for a dead person here.
Peter Black said this on June 26th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
It was South Staffs during the General Election. Election rerun. Existing candidates stay in, new nominations opened (NOT a by election).
AB said this on June 26th, 2006 at 2:38 pm
That headline actually relates to a different story - the tabloid was printed last week, but I like your thinking
虚拟主机 said this on June 29th, 2006 at 6:00 am