![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
By-election vs re-run debate ==By-election vs re-run election==
Just in case there are any more queries: this will be a by-election. See Winchester by-election, 1997 and the other examples listed at United Kingdom by-election records#By-elections prompted by Election Courts. Of course, it could still be held in 2011 rather than 2010 and could probably be cancelled if Woolas was to succeed in overturning the decision of the court - although our article on election courts claims that no appeal is permitted. Warofdreams talk 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but if Woolas is banned from holding public office for three years, as I've heard reported today, then it's surely unlikely he would be able to stand in this election. Won't Labour have to select an alternative candidate? I guess we'll know more next week. TheRetroGuy ( talk) 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This will be a re-run election and not a by-election. The court made it clear the GE campaign must be re-run. This is important for spenidng and standing eligibility. The spending will be that of a GE seat and not a by-election. A by-election is a mandatory £100,000 limit. This election will be run under the criteria for a short campaign of a GE. Standing will also only be open to the original candidates and those who did not stand elsewhere in the GE in May. The Winchester article is also wrong, it was technically not a by-election as Oaten never took his seat under the original result which was declared void. The election was re-run as if it was the original election on GE day. There were though no differences in spending or standing criteria in 1997 betwen by-elections and normal elections. This is a re-run election and not a by-election, there is a clear distinction in this case.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime - please stop moving this page without gaining consensus! ninety: one 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Can someone clarify exactly what Woolas is applying for a review of? As discussed above, s144 appears to state that no appeal is possible. Is it that he is applying for a review of the punishments imposed (fine and ban on standing) or the whole verdict? ninety: one 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we'd all like to know that one. My guess would be it's about him not being allowed an appeal. An alternative route may be to take it to the European Court of Human Rights, but that could drag on for many years. Ironic, really, as as immigration minister, he stopped failed asylum seekers from seeking an appeal. The by-election is likely to be over by the time any judicial review is completed. Woolas cannot now be re-instated in any case. But he could stand if in a byelection if he were found innocent at an appeal by close of nominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.158.158 ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone give me a link which says that the NF will be standing? This is not going to be good news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.148 ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Great that we're getting sources for each candidate in the run up. When the deadline for nomination passes (I understand it's just prior to New Year's Eve) then we can replace all the sources with the one from Oldham Council. doktorb words deeds 08:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it really NPOV to have only lab/lib/con in the infobox when there are 12 parties that have declared they are contesting the election? Those three, although they are the "major" parties, aren't even the only parties that have existing seats in Westminster (the Greens also have one) and at least two further parties have won seats in other major elections. I would be WP:BOLD and remove them myself but I want to avoid any potential conflict of interest. -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it difficult to credit that anyone could think that writing up Debbie Abrahams' electoral performance in Colne Valley in the most negative possible terms could constitute a reasonable and neutral addition to this article, but I suppose I have to. But let it be said clearly that the same facts could easily be put in different terms: Debbie Abrahams' vote fell, but in an election where the Labour vote was substantially down across the country. Her vote fell by 9.0%, less than the Labour vote fell in the neighbouring and demographically similar Calder Valley (11.5%). There was a general pattern of the Labour vote falling more where a sitting MP retired and the candidate was new, as was the case here.
If another editor had been minded to forget WP:POINT for a moment they might chose to add the fact that both Kashif Ali and Elwyn Watkins were also noted election losers, having been rejected by the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth only a few months before this byelection. That edit too would violate WP:NPOV and I would have reverted it. The edit which I have reverted is no better. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 13 November 2010. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
By-election vs re-run debate ==By-election vs re-run election==
Just in case there are any more queries: this will be a by-election. See Winchester by-election, 1997 and the other examples listed at United Kingdom by-election records#By-elections prompted by Election Courts. Of course, it could still be held in 2011 rather than 2010 and could probably be cancelled if Woolas was to succeed in overturning the decision of the court - although our article on election courts claims that no appeal is permitted. Warofdreams talk 16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Just a thought, but if Woolas is banned from holding public office for three years, as I've heard reported today, then it's surely unlikely he would be able to stand in this election. Won't Labour have to select an alternative candidate? I guess we'll know more next week. TheRetroGuy ( talk) 22:54, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
This will be a re-run election and not a by-election. The court made it clear the GE campaign must be re-run. This is important for spenidng and standing eligibility. The spending will be that of a GE seat and not a by-election. A by-election is a mandatory £100,000 limit. This election will be run under the criteria for a short campaign of a GE. Standing will also only be open to the original candidates and those who did not stand elsewhere in the GE in May. The Winchester article is also wrong, it was technically not a by-election as Oaten never took his seat under the original result which was declared void. The election was re-run as if it was the original election on GE day. There were though no differences in spending or standing criteria in 1997 betwen by-elections and normal elections. This is a re-run election and not a by-election, there is a clear distinction in this case.-- Lucy-marie ( talk) 18:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
In the meantime - please stop moving this page without gaining consensus! ninety: one 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
|
Can someone clarify exactly what Woolas is applying for a review of? As discussed above, s144 appears to state that no appeal is possible. Is it that he is applying for a review of the punishments imposed (fine and ban on standing) or the whole verdict? ninety: one 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I think we'd all like to know that one. My guess would be it's about him not being allowed an appeal. An alternative route may be to take it to the European Court of Human Rights, but that could drag on for many years. Ironic, really, as as immigration minister, he stopped failed asylum seekers from seeking an appeal. The by-election is likely to be over by the time any judicial review is completed. Woolas cannot now be re-instated in any case. But he could stand if in a byelection if he were found innocent at an appeal by close of nominations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.155.158.158 ( talk) 15:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Could someone give me a link which says that the NF will be standing? This is not going to be good news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.41.148 ( talk) 02:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Great that we're getting sources for each candidate in the run up. When the deadline for nomination passes (I understand it's just prior to New Year's Eve) then we can replace all the sources with the one from Oldham Council. doktorb words deeds 08:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it really NPOV to have only lab/lib/con in the infobox when there are 12 parties that have declared they are contesting the election? Those three, although they are the "major" parties, aren't even the only parties that have existing seats in Westminster (the Greens also have one) and at least two further parties have won seats in other major elections. I would be WP:BOLD and remove them myself but I want to avoid any potential conflict of interest. -- M2Ys4U ( talk) 21:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
I find it difficult to credit that anyone could think that writing up Debbie Abrahams' electoral performance in Colne Valley in the most negative possible terms could constitute a reasonable and neutral addition to this article, but I suppose I have to. But let it be said clearly that the same facts could easily be put in different terms: Debbie Abrahams' vote fell, but in an election where the Labour vote was substantially down across the country. Her vote fell by 9.0%, less than the Labour vote fell in the neighbouring and demographically similar Calder Valley (11.5%). There was a general pattern of the Labour vote falling more where a sitting MP retired and the candidate was new, as was the case here.
If another editor had been minded to forget WP:POINT for a moment they might chose to add the fact that both Kashif Ali and Elwyn Watkins were also noted election losers, having been rejected by the voters of Oldham East and Saddleworth only a few months before this byelection. That edit too would violate WP:NPOV and I would have reverted it. The edit which I have reverted is no better. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 19:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)