A correspondent sends Recess Monkey this excerpt 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 that votes given to him are “votes thrown awayâ€. 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.â€
So how long do you think it will be before Labour, LibDems & UKIP start publishing “wasted vote” leaflets?
editor[at]recessmonkey.com
Loading ...
I can’t see Labour using up their second leaflet on the “wasted vote” issue. They have nothing to gain from it, as they are likely to come 4th. They will be hoping the Tories hold the seat so that it rapidly becomes a forgotten byelection.
AB said this on June 26th, 2006 at 1:42 pm
correct. but the way to help make this happen is to work the seat as hard as possible for Labour and to be positive about Labour and attack the LibDems. quite whether the party powers that be have had this sensible thought is another matter.
janestheone said this on June 26th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Seemingly not. On the Today programme this morning they said: “For Labour the reality has set in. Senior members of the Constituency Party told me that they won’t win this by-election”. So it is up to the Lib Dems (who seem to be getting more upbeat about their chances)
AB said this on June 26th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
So some of you would wish to teat the expressed wish of the electorate, if you don’t agree with it, with complete contempt and try to steal a parliamentary seat by means of proceedural shenanigans. A real blow for democracy and localism that’ll be. But then from the people who gave us the Standards Board no real surprise I guess.
matt said this on June 26th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
I think it is important that you have a driving licence before you drive a car - that isn’t procedural shenanigans.
AB said this on June 26th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
I think the person making the false declaration on the nomination form would be more accuratly accused of “stealing” an election - and because the tone has been lowered, i shall be forced to write another story about Rehman Chishti
Recess Monkey said this on June 26th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Anyone from the Labour party banging on about false declarations and other procedural wrondoings has patently never heard the proverb about people in glass houses not throwing stones. Have you not heard of Ilford South, Birmingham, Tower Hamlets etc etc etc?
Another Rehman Chisti story, I just can’t wait.Especially not if it finally explains why you hate the irrelevent self serving careerist so very much Recess. Dohh…….I just answered that one for myself didn’t I.
matt said this on June 26th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Matt, you are totally missing the point. Yes, if Labour people cheat it is wrong and should pulled up at any opportunity, But Conservatives breaking the law is just as bad. Particularly when you consider that their own manual, which you assume CCHQ types running the election should have read, specifically highlights the dangers of this practice. It is nothing to do with procedural wrongdoings and everything to do with obeying the law.
Another Anon said this on June 26th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
And since Bob Neill is saying that he has had legal advice and is within the law then it looks like it will end up being down to m’learned friends to decide whether the will of the people, from whom the legitimacy of all laws comes, is to be done or not. Laws without democracy are dictatorship.
matt said this on June 27th, 2006 at 3:42 am
You say “Laws without democracy are dictatorship” like its a bad thing
Manchester's Finest said this on June 27th, 2006 at 9:55 am
Democracy without Law is a dictatorship - you just have to look at the shenanigans that goes on in some of ‘Democratic’ Africa. QED
Piginthepoke said this on June 27th, 2006 at 10:18 am
again, you say it like its a bad thing
Manchester's Finest said this on June 28th, 2006 at 10:59 am
You only scooped the local newspaper by a few days
http://www.flickr.com/photos/robfenwick/177186978/
Mark P said this on June 28th, 2006 at 8:32 pm
Democracy without Laws isn’t Dictatorship Piginthepoke, it is Anarchy of the worst type.Dictatorship is only a good thing when you are the Dictator Manchester’s Finest, otherwise it is a pretty shitty outcome for everyone else.
matt said this on June 28th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
As I remember from my first year of politics at university, democracy (from the greek) means rule of the people. Thus a democracy cannot be anarchy, as by definition, it involves people making collective decisions, thus becoming an authority by themselves. Furthermore, you can’t have a democracy without laws, as any decision made by the “demos” could effectively be considered a law (with the caveat that it may not be a permenant decision). Here endeth the lesson.
Dave said this on June 28th, 2006 at 10:17 pm