Talk:2011 Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election

{| class="wikitable" width=800px {{show
 * 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. 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)


 * |Phil Woolas election re-run judgement: In full This source clearly states the GE campaign must be re-run, so it is not a by-election it is a re-run of the GE.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That article simply says the "election must be re-run", whilst another article repeatedly describes it as a "by-election". To be honest, I'm not sure the distinction is one worth making; so long as any legal differences re. spending limits are set out, the reader isn't going to care. ninety:one  23:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * While I agree most readers won't care is there another title possible which avoids using either Re-run election or By-election?--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell the judgement doesn't say "the GE campaign must be re-run". I think it might be helpful if you could back up that claim. As I've said elsewhere though, I am hopeful that the Speaker's statement tomorrow will clarify things. Adambro (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of article stating it is a "re-run" and plenty stating it is a "by-election" as Ninetyone no normal user is really going to care so i think the best thing to do is to try and find a suitable title which uses neither Re-run or By-election, that way this whole argument disappears. The text of the article can easily be changed to an election ordered by an election court, and a like completely avoiding by-election or re-run.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The judgment said nothing of the sort. This is the judgment. Media reports, reducing a complex legal situation to a simple one, may have used the phrase "rerun" but that has no basis in law. There is no such thing as a rerun election. The fact that the press may use the phrase does not mean it has any meaning. I do not know on what basis you claim Mark Oaten "never took his seat in the commons under the original result" in 1997, as it is certainly untrue: Here he is taking his seat (col 24) and here he is making his maiden speech on 4 June, some time before the court declared his original election void. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are many sources which will show anyone who cares the true legal situation, but initially I direct you to F. W. S. Craig's "Chronology of British Parliamentary Byelections, 1833-1987". In Table 3 (p. 318-322) there is a statistical summary of the "reasons for by-elections in each year". Craig gives one of the reasons as "6. Elections declared void following petitions". In other words, if the original election is declared void, this is a cause of a by-election. Craig says the same in the introduction, p. x. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why I say there is no such thing as a rerun election is this: there is no class of election taking place at a time other than a general election, which is not a by-election. There are no differences between a byelection which is caused by the previous member dying and one which is caused by the previous member's election being declared void. If it was suggested that a previous election being declared void meant that, on one reading of the facts, the general election in the constituency was being rerun, then one could equally well say that the general election was being rerun because the Member failed to make it through the Parliament alive. However there is one significant difference which in itself makes it odd to call this a rerun of the general election, in that the candidate who got the most votes won't be able to be a candidate again. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The Craig source was written before the new election rules were passed in the wake of the expenses scandal setting up the long and short campaigns and preventing people standing in multiple constituencies in the same General election. The test of weather this is a by-election or re-run election will be firstly the spending limits and secondly who is eligible to stand.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a rerun election and the changes to the expenses rules make no difference. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying the same thing again and again will not make you right or more correct in any situation, it is not a case of winning, it is a case of either finiding an acceptable compromise or finding the most accepted version. Stating you are wrong and I am right is not either helpful or constructive.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The judgement doesn't state By-election or re-run election anywhere in the judgement. As has been pointed out though the simplest thing to do is to avoid both phrases where possible and this argument is then moot.No ordinary user will actually give a hoot in reality and the article can make clear the reasoning behind the resultant election. Also please refrain from moving just to make a point the most recent moving of this page is non-constructive and a blatant move just to further one point of view.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as a rerun election. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have said that before and it makes no odds in this case as the reasoning you are giving is based on precedent set before new legislation regarding spending and standing rules came in to effect.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Those changes make absolutely no difference to the fact that there is no such thing as a rerun election. Wary as I am of 'argument from authority', can I ask you whether you have read 'O'Malley and Hardcastle's Reports on Election Petitions'? Or Hardcastle's book on the law and practice of election petitions? Or Erskine May? Or Rogers on Elections? Or Schofield's Election Law? In any case the basic principle actually comes down to a single thing which is whether the election is run according to a separate writ. If the forthcoming election in Oldham East and Saddleworth is run in pursuance of the same writ for electing a member that the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery issued in April as part of the general election, then it would be reasonable to refer to it as a re-run election. However, it will not be. It will be run when the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery issues (after receiving the Speaker's warrant) a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament in room of Philip James Woolas, whose election has been determined to be void. And that fact is definitive: it is a by-election. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion is now descending into I have more academic sources than you and I have read more sources than you. This is in danger of becoming a synthesis project. While you are clearly very forthright in your views I am going to advise you to keep cool and take a step back. Lets let others comments and wade back in later if we must. As this is not actually progressing any further I am disengaging from this discussion for a few days to allow others to comment and allow genuine strands or debate to open as opposed to the quoting of more books which are not easily accessible and re-hashing the same circular arguments.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * May I rather gently point out that it is a somewhat odd complaint that I am being unfair in citing reputable sources (in fact the standard reference works in the field) when you don't have anything to cite. I'm not here to rub your nose in it, but the reason you don't have anything to cite is that you have misunderstood the legal position. However many times the press may have said "rerun election", there is still no such thing and Wikipedia is not obliged to follow inaccurate terminology used by non-specialists attempting to sum up a complex legal situation to a lay audience. We have the space to use the correct terminology and explain things fully. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My edition of Erskine May is somewhat old but the law in this area has not changed since it was published and I understand this section is unchanged in the present edition. In remarks on "New Writs", the text notes: "Whenever vacancies occur in the House of Commons from any legal cause, after the original issue of writs for a new Parliament from the Crown, writs are issued out of Chancery by a warrant from the Speaker, which he issues, when the House is sitting, upon the order of the House of Commons. The causes of vacancies are [list of other causes] ... the determination of election judges that elections or returns are void." An earlier section makes it clear that all such new elections are by-elections; the term by-election simply means an election taking place other than at a general election, so they must be. No edition of Erskine May has ever referred to such a thing as a "rerun election" because there is no such thing as a rerun election. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is an irrelevancy in this case due to the new rules and legislation passed for the 2010 GE, but as I said now is the time to step back and let other have their say as opposed to having a circular argument you are unwilling to back down from.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No statute or regulation passed recently has created the concept of a "rerun election". The Oldham East result was avoided under a statute passed in 1895 and under court procedure agreed in 1868. The procedure for electing a new Member in a by-election has been in place for centuries more (although the term 'by-election' only came into use in the 19th century). Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We Will all find out weather it is a re-run of the GE or a by election based on the spending limits permitted and the candidates eligible to stand. Until that is know we are both wrong in some respects and we are both right in some respects. Wikipedia is also not a place to try and claim legal precedent when there in no legal precedent in this case. The reason there is no precdent is the new legislation and that the this is the first successful petition in section 106 of the 1983 act the previous successfull election petition based on something similar to this case was in 1911. The 1911 case if bought today would have been under section 158 of the 1983 act. I am now beginning to think you may be an "expert" trying to "take on" the ordinary Wikipedia users. Best advice is we all stop editing this talk page and the associated articles for a few days.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The North Louth case concerned many other allegations apart from the false statements of fact about Healy's personal character - there were six in all. Intimidation was not proved, bribery was, treating was, etc. I think you make a mistake as no Petition could be brought citing a breach of section 158 of the 1983 Act; this section states what would be done in the event that a court finds a corrupt and illegal practice took place but does not define what a corrupt or illegal practice is. The North Louth case was brought under the original 1895 statute which is now part of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (which, I would remind you, was a consolidation act). See 6 O'M & H 103 at 154 where Gibson J recites the statute. The judgment in Oldham makes it clear that Phil Woolas has been reported personally guilty of an illegal practice and that the Judges have declined to grant him relief from the electoral disabilities which normally follow, so unless his judicial review succeeds in overturning the judgment, he is disqualified. I plead guilty to expertise, by the way, and in mitigation I ask the court to accept that I did not understand knowing about the subject under discussion to be a crime. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, the present £100,000 limit on campaign spending in byelections was introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, s. 132, which inserted an amendment in the Representation of the People Act 1983. This section came into force on 16 February 2001. However it changed a previous amendment to the 1983 Act made by the Representation of the People Act 1989, s. 6. This section was in force at the time of the Winchester byelection in 1997 and meant that campaign spending limits in the byelection were higher than those in the general election which polled on 1 May. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The correct term here is "by-election", as it is not an election that is part of a General Election campaign, nor is it the postponement of an election that would have been held as part of the General Election had it not been for curcumstances preventing this (cf Thirsk & Malton). The fact that the GE result for the constituency has been voided is irrelevant - as, indeed, are spending limits. The election, as it is not part of the GE itself, is a by-election. The term "re-run election", whilst technically accurate, is not used in British English for the UK political system, and I therefore would recommend the term "by-election" to be used in the title as per WP:AT. Krytenia (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Newsnight's Michael Crick has news of campaign spending limits in the by-election: the Electoral Commission confirm it will be the £100,000 by-election limit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Not that there was any real doubt that this was actually a By-election by any real definition. -  Gallo glass  11:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that this will by a by-election for all intents and purposes, that the article title should be "by-election" and that it is confusing to describe it as anything but... however, Parliament's factsheet on by-elections in 1997-2001 says:
 * "The “by-election” in Winchester was technically a re-run of the 1997 General Election following a successful legal challenge to the original result."
 * and:
 * "Technically, this election was not a by-election"
 * So I guess whilst it might not technically be a by-election, it is considered as such. It might, however, be useful to add in a brief explanation of the exact specifics of this election, but not in a confusing way. ninety:one  15:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer an alternative explanation: the House of Commons Information office contains someone who does not know what they are writing about, and they have been in charge of writing this briefing note. A void general election result leads to a byelection. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Michael Crick's article linked to above says the same thing:
 * "People keep talking about there being a by-election in the seat, but strictly speaking it would a re-run of the contest held at the general election in May."
 * Without meaning to insult you in anyway, it's two reliable sources against your opinion. I don't mean at all for that to sound like an insult; it's not, but the sources look pretty conclusive. Do you think you might be able to find some that support your explanation? (Again, this is not a criticism or insult, just the facts of the matter). ninety:one  15:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you look up you will see a large number of sources I have previously cited. As there is no such thing as a "rerun election" it is difficult to find any source explicitly saying that a particular byelection wasn't one. One of the problems with this argument is that no-one has identified what exactly it is that makes a "rerun election" different from a byelection, apart from the initial suggestion that expenses limits would be those applying to general elections (a suggestion which we now know to be false). The basic fact, though, derives from the writ which formally commands the election process into action: if the forthcoming election was run in pursuance of the writ issued in April, then it is part of the general election and reasonable to call it a rerun of that election. However, it won't be. The election process will start when the Clerk of the Crown issues a new writ. A new writ means a byelection, simple as that. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it to be a "re-run election", but rather not (technically) a by-election. We have two sources saying "technically it's not a by-election". Your comments about the writ are a tad disingenuous, for no election could be held without some sort of writ being issued, including a "re-run election" if such a thing existed, and that fact that one is to be issued will not make it in and of itself a by-election. Given the confusion and apparently conflicting sources, perhaps it's best if we also make it clear that the unique nature of such an election means that the nomenclature is not agreed upon? ninety:one  20:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you wish to be picky, technically there is no such thing as a byelection. The term arose informally in the 19th century and had no place in official terminology until very recently. Your comments about writs are ridiculous; it is the decisive factor and I'm sorry you don't have the base knowledge of the British constitution that would let you see it. See F.W.S. Craig's "British Parliamentary Election Results 1950-1973" page xvii at the bottom of the page in the note about postponed polls. Craig notes that postponed polls: "it should be noted that postponed polls are not considered by-elections but are part of the General Election, no new writ being issued." (my emphasis) In other words, an election in which a new writ was issued would be a byelection. And let's have a look-see: on 14 May 1924, the Election Court declares Frank Gray's election as MP for Oxford void; on 19 May the decision is reported to the House; on 21 May 1924 a New Writ is issued for a byelection; on 5 June 1924 a byelection is held and Robert Bourne is elected; he is returned 'in room of Frank Gray, Esquire, whose election has been declared to be void'. That is a return to a new writ. It is a byelection. The fact that other people (who ought to know better) don't understand it is no excuse for Wikipedia to make a mistake. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Just thought of another way of explaining the situation. Suppose, at some time between 6 May and 11 AM on 5 November, the question had been asked: "Who won the 2010 general election in Oldham East and Saddleworth?" The correct answer would have been "Phil Woolas". Since 11 AM on 5 November, the correct answer is "Phil Woolas, but the result was declared void". After the byelection the correct answer will still be "Phil Woolas, but the result was declared void". The correct answer to the question "Who won the 1923 general election in Oxford City?" is "Frank Gray, but the result was declared void". The answer "Robert Bourne" is incorrect because Robert Bourne lost by 2,693 votes. The answer to the question "Who won the 1922 general election in Berwick-upon-Tweed?" is not "Mabel Philipson" because she was not a candidate at the general election of 1922. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of a postponed poll, the election does not occur on the proposed date, but rather on a later date, so no new writ is needed. You were saying that because a new writ is issued, it must therefore be a by-election. I am merely contesting this on the grounds that the simple act of issuing a writ (other that in pursuit of the order after the proclamation) does not, of itself, make the subsequent election a by-election. You are apparently of the contrary opinion, but I'm afraid the lack of explicit statements to that effect causes me to be somewhat apprehensive in joining you. There is apparently nothing particularly reliable that explicitly states either way, so I'm not going to get too excited about it.
 * This isn't really going anywhere, but describing my comments as 'ridiculous' and saying that I don't have a 'base knowledge' of the British constitution could be construed by a less forgiving person as a personal attack, and either way is not a particularly effective demonstration of good faith. Given the clear confusion, I suggested in my last comment that we not only explain the differences between this and other elections, but that we also make clear that the nomenclature is not clear-cut.
 * With respect to your latest comment - I agree with what you say and I'm afraid I'm not sure I quite grasp the point you're trying to make there! ninety:one  22:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is, Mabel Philipson must either have won the 1922 general election in Berwick-upon-Tweed (whether on the day or as a 'rerun election' if such a thing were to exist) or a Berwick-upon-Tweed byelection. If she did not, as you seem to agree, win the general election, she therefore won a byelection. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This has got out of hand and is now moving way off topic talking about the 1922 General Election. It will be a "re-run" if the spending limit is the same as that of the short campaign in the General election. It will be a by-election if the spending limit is £100,000. This will be regardless of a new writ being issued or if a By-election or Re-run election actually exists. The spending limits will determine the nomenclature. Also who is eligible to stand will play a part in a By-election anyone except Wollas could stand, in a re-run only candidates who stood in the original election and those who did not stand in the GE in another constituency could stand.


 * Making claims others don't know what they are on about is unconstructive and not helpful to collaborative discussion, no matter how much of an expert any user is. All users’ opinions are of the same weight and throwing round conflicting sources is not constructive, particularly the same sources again and again. This will only be sorted when the legal proceedings are completed and when the Speaker makes their ruling, until then both nomenclature are wrong and an alternative should be sought.

--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Lucy-marie when it comes to giving the correct parliamentary nomenclature Sam Blacketer is an acknowledged expert in this field and one we have all come to rely on over the past several years. On this issue as in many others his reasoning and supporting evidence is second to none. Can I suggest you check some of the sources he has cited as these will answer any concerns you still may have. -  Gallo glass  00:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to play let’s all say this user is right because we have said he is right in the past that is not how wiki works, just because one user is an "established expert" doesn’t make them any more or less correct in this instance. It also doesn’t mean their opinion carries more or less weight than other opinions on this issue. As this is a wholly new issue and is dependent on rulings to happen in the future the nomenclature cannot be settled at present. This is a collaborative project and one user cannot be taken to have more weight than other or the collaborative nature of Wikipedia would fall apart at the seams. Experts are welcome but when one "expert" acts in a way that only their opinion is right is unhelpful and unconstructive. All users’ opinions are welcome. In this instance there are sources provided by users who are of differing opinions which back up their opinions and contradict the others opinions. The simplest thing to do is take a wikibreak until the proceeding and rulings are al finalised and then the issue will be settled. For the time being neither user can be considered correct as the final rules of the election to be held or if it is to even be held are unknown.--Lucy-marie (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

In a blog post yesterday, Michael Crick has posted a "procedural clarification note" that he received from the House of Commons which refers to it as a by-election:
 * "''... As the seat is now vacant, a by-election will be held once the House of Commons has passed a motion for the issue of a writ.
 * The Speaker can neither initiate nor block the motion to move a writ for a by-election. He has no say in when a Member moves a writ for the by-election. ..." -Paul1337 (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Weather it is a by-election or a re-run will depend on spending limits and standing criteria and not what a man posts on his blog, regardless of the sources of their information or who the blogger is.--22:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify, Michael Crick is not posting his opinion on whether or not it is a by-election (in this blog post at least; in two previous blog posts he did write, erroneously it now seems, that it would be a re-run election rather than a by-election), he is posting a "procedural clarification note" that he received from the House of Commons, who are calling it a by-election. So if the House of Commons are calling it a by-election, I would think it's fairly safe to say that it will in fact be a by-election and that Wikipedia should thus refer to it as a by-election. -Paul1337 (talk) 22:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This has certainly been an interesting discussion. Lucy-marie almost seems obsessed with insisting this will be a "re-run election" and not actually interested in considering the suggestions of others that it may not be. I note how she declared that "This will be a re-run election and not a by-election. The court made it clear the GE campaign must be re-run." She also stated that "The judgement stated the GE campaign must be re-run" whilst at the same time asking, "please back up your claim this will be a normal by-election" despite as it turned out the court judgement didn't actually back up her own statements that "The court made it clear the GE campaign must be re-run" or that "The judgement stated the GE campaign must be re-run"; the judgement simply says the GE result is void. Soon after this was pointed out she then switched to saying "The judgement doesn't state By-election or re-run election anywhere in the judgement" but she didn't accept that it might be a by-election on that basis but instead suggested we "avoid both phrases" almost as if it is better for this article to use an imprecise term than for her to accept she might not be correct in saying this will be a "re-run election". It all almost makes me wonder if bothering to discuss anything with her is pointless if the goal posts are going to just keep moving. Let me be clear, I appreciate that I don't know enough about election law to confidently say whether Lucy-marie is wrong or right, but it isn't particularly helpful if when trying to discuss this when we might think we've addressed a particular point that has been made that she just seems to completely change the basis for her argument. Adambro (talk) 23:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the whole point of constructive discussions, when one point is moved away from and is no longer be argued and new points are being argued as the discussion evolves, this is not a game of trying to defeat the other users or having users only being allowed to use one discussion point or barring them from moving away from their original point f discussion as the discussion evolves. As I have said the decision of the courts are still ongoing and the spending and eligibility to stand criteria will determine weather the election will be a by-election or a general election re-run.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not actually ongoing as any longer as all evidence points to this being a normal by-election. Its simply on hold while the former mp exausts the legal options. -  Gallo glass  10:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The spending stuff was debunked ages ago I thought? It's looking like it will be termed a "by-election" by almost everybody now. ninety:one  17:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

}}
 * }

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. -  Gallo glass  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 wordsdeeds 08:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And now that's exactly what I've done :) doktorb wordsdeeds 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 wordsdeeds 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 wordsdeeds 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)