Talk:2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election

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) I agree, s144 makes it clear that no appeal is possible, so I think he's going to apply for judicial review on some particular point. ninety:one 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC) This may become clearer on Monday when it is likely that the Speaker will make a statement. The judicial review option seems less likely now Labour won't be supporting it. Adambro (talk) 17:22, 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) As well as the general provision of being barred from "any elective office" for three years, he's specifically barred from being elected to the House of Commons for three years under Section 160(4)(a)(ii). So he definitely won't be standing in the by-election (unless the judicial review is successful of course, which I rather doubt). -Paul1337 (talk) 03:01, 6 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) I don't see where any of this is mentioned in the judgement. It only really seems to say the previous election is void. Don't we really need to wait for the Speaker's statement? Adambro (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure that moving the page without discussing it first was the right thing to do, seeing as it had already been raised, but I do agree with Lucy-marie here. ninety:one 18:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC) I apologise for moving the page under WP:BOLD but i scanned the discusion and i must have missed the bit at the start, i though tis was talking about the judicial review and not if it was a re-run or a by-election.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC) There is no such thing as a 'rerun election'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Almost everything Lucy-Marie is says is factually incorrect. There is no such thing as a 'rerun election'. If a seat is vacated due to a void election, the ensuing election has always been a by-election which takes place in pursuance of a new writ. The judgment mentions nothing about spending limits in the ensuing election. Winchester was a byelection and spending was in line with the higher limits in place for byelections. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC) You've both made rather sweeping statements without citing any sources - do you think one or other of you might be able to? All we have at the moment are two assertions. ninety:one 22:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC) In the meantime - please stop moving this page without gaining consensus! ninety:one 22:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC) The judgement stated the GE campaign must be re-run can you please back up your claim this will be a normal by-election. The new spending limits only came in to force on 1 January 2010 so the concept of re-running an election under differing spending limits is fairly new. Also Winchester was not a by-election as Oaten never took his seat in the commons under the original result so the seat was technically never filled so the seat was still vacant since the dissolution of the previous parliament and no new writ was required. in 1997 there was no spending limit distinctions, though there was a limit.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC) [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11701978

Judicial review

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)

Woolas can ask for a review of points of law and seek redress via compensation but the voiding of the May result can not be changed. - Galloglass 16:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

National Front?

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)

Britain Votes: "There are also strong rumours that the National Front and the Pirate Party will field candidates, but they yet to be confirmed. I'm sure we'll have a few more on top of that as well!" -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 22:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Candidate Sources

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)

And now that's exactly what I've done :) doktorb _words^deeds 16:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox candidates

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 did have doubts over the use of just three. However, with the British system as it is, would you open it up for just the Greens and not, say, UKIP or others? I can see a valid argument to keep the previous elections' top 3. Though, to be honest, this infobox style has not been used much before in British election articles, there s just as valid an argument against using it at all...doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My inclination would be to not include any if they won't all fit -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 21:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Infoboxes in cases like this are never comprehensive. They do focus on the main parties, so the question then is how do you define the main parties in a NPOV manner? Looking at the last result, it's pretty clear who the main parties are (Lab/LD/Con), so I'd leave the infobox as it is. That said, I can see value in having clearer guidelines pre-agreed about what to do in such circumstances. It seems to me those would make more sense on a constituency-by-constituency basis rather than simply which parties have seats in Westminster. (For example, one could include all parties who saved their deposit last time, which would add BNP to the list in this case.) Bondegezou (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've reviewed how the infobox is used in past UK Westminster by-election articles. When used, it shows all parties over 5%. For a forthcoming election, I presume we go on the previous result, ergo we should add the BNP to the list, but not Greens, UKIP etc. Bondegezou (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a fine line argument. Looking at it from an NPOV perspective, even using 5% is a bit ropey (how many parties have gone from 5% to 35+ in modern times?). I think top 3 is realistic, reflective of the realistic front runners, and if nothing else frankly, looks better than having one 4th party 'hanging' beneath theh main 3 doktorb _words^deeds 08:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I cannot recall what previous by-election articles did in the run-up to those elections, but all the UK by-elections with infoboxes I checked now (going back ~10 years) list all parties above 5%. I agree with the sentiment that a party that got just over 5% last time is highly unlikely to win and that Lab/LD/Con are the only candidates likely to win in this seat, but it seems to me the safest approach with respect to NPOV is to stick to the prior pattern. Bondegezou (talk) 15:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Those infoboxes have just been added in the past few days, so they aren't necessarily evidence of consensus (as it happens, I think they are fine, but that's beside the point). I don't believe that any previous by-election articles have had an infobox ahead of time, so the best parallel would be with other upcoming election articles. Unfortunately, these all have different approaches. Next United Kingdom general election just includes the three major parties, Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011 includes all parties with more than 5% of the vote last time, Scottish Parliament election, 2011 includes all parties which won seats last time, and it's hard to tell which criteria are used for National Assembly for Wales election, 2011. Warofdreams talk 15:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Warofdreams, for spotting that. Given that, I suggest this: the bookies are only advertising odds on Lab/LD/Con, therefore I think one can, in an NPOV manner, conclude only those three are real contenders and only those three should be listed. Bondegezou (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm really uncomfortable with this because when you look at the article, you could infer only three candidates are standing, as the candidate list is not visible without scrolling down. The BBC uses an expression such as "A full list of candidates is available at the BBC Web Site" when it talks about the election on the radio. I would like to add a caveat within the infobox such as "An alphabetical list of candidates exists within this article." Any thoughts on the idea? And how to do it? Crooked cottage (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Debbie Abrahams in Colne Valley

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)

Agree wholeheartedly Sam. If you look at Abrahams' performance relative to the Conservatives in Colne Valley 2010 (swing -6.6) it's better than that of Woolas in Old&Sad 2010 (swing -9.7), which is after all the neighbouring constituency to the west from Colne Valley (with Calder Valley to the north). To say that going from first to third in a three way marginal, particularly when you are not the MP, is necessarily an indicator of being a weak candidate is nonsense. Crooked cottage (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer makes the comparison with Watkins' and Ali's past performances, but their past performances are clear from the article, as they both stood in this constituency previously. The whole context of the article thus makes clear that Watkins was a loser last time (albeit against a candidate breaking the law) and that Ali was a loser last time. The 2010 result (with vote changes compared to 2005) is there for all to see. In that context, it is Abrahams who is unequally spared any coverage of her previous performance. It provides balance to have some brief note of how she did in 2010. By the way, Sam Blacketer, I don't think that grudgingly saying you are sticking to WP:AGF in any way is following the spirit of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)