Talk:2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election

Which party?

There is no word from the Conservatives that Davis is standing for them. Please don't quote them unless you have source. --91.106.28.24 (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

And you, please stop adding nonsense, even if you are correct that there is no official word (I myself don't have a clue). -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

David Cameron, as leader of the Conservatives, has said that they are backing Davis. Bondegezou (talk) 13:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Drop a quotable source in, and Bob's your uncle.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Backing him? No. They're going to "support" him, but not back him financially. So, so far we have nothing that says he'll be the Conservative candidate. We need to wait to officially hear from the Conservative Central Office or the man himself. Until then, we're in danger of just repeating the press's guesswork. There's no deadline folks, so we can wait. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is a highly unusual by-election. We'll have to be on our toes here, peeps. Too many "as live" updates and we'll turn this page into a blog. Too few and we'll be caught napping. More now than ever, we MUST have sources, and I know it's tempting, but Conservative Home is not a reliable source! We've got, what, a month to go, already this article has been edited about 500 times I'd guess! We are all pretty good editors, we know the score, but it's about control, especially the anonytors who I suspect will flood in nearer polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 14:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How a campaign is funded is an internal matter, so I don't see much reason for Redvers to use it as evidence against the clear support being given to Davis by the Conservative party, as stated by David Camerson no less. It seems POV to go out of the way to interpret that as not meaning that he's the Tory candidate. Bondegezou (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a reliable source for the OMRLP candidate. Any chance someone could put the results box for Mad Cow-Girl back? You can argue about whether Davis is a tory or not in your own time.--91.106.28.24 (talk) 14:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not worth having the full election box up for just one candidate. Hold your horses till we have more candidates good to go doktorb _words^deeds 14:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the box is hard-coded to have a party against the candidate's name. If there's no party, the box breaks in a very ugly way. Until there's an official announcement that he's the Conservative candidate or is standing as an Independent or whatever, we can't put a box up. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 14:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=people.constituency.page&obj_id=1847 - I'm going to put the box back up Sotonchris (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←I took your addition of Ken Mitchell out. The source provided was his blog (this is not reliable) - we need actual, reliable, verifiable sources, not people's jokey blogs. Thanks. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 15:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have known better! I've tidied up the candidates section into sub-headings as it was a bit jumbled and lacked any type of real structure. Sotonchris (talk) 15:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable per se (UKPolling seems to be a generally accepted site on the whole), so if this guy is standing, we may have to wait for the candidates to be officially confirmed by the Returning Officer. doktorb _words^deeds 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Newspaper supported candidates

I've never come across this before. The Sun has already launched a blistering attack on Davis "evidence of a deranged mind" [1] - doesn't this breach election rules ? Are there any rules ? Who enforces them ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

There's plenty of rules, and sometimes they get enforced. However I don't believe David Davis has actually resigned yet. Following this, a writ will be moved by the Conservatives in parliament, and after a certain period for candidates to formally become nominated, then the election will be in progress. It may happen quite quickly, or it may take longer. But it hasn't happened just yet!--91.106.28.24 (talk) 17:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So who enforces them ? Looking at the Electoral Commission website, it doesn't appear to be them, hence the question. If I heard correctly the BBC 6 o'clock news has said that Davis officialy resigns on Wednesday. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 17:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The Returning Officer for the relevant council will have something to say if, during the official election period, something is said against the RotPA or necessary legislation. As for his resignation date, that should be between Monday and Wednesday, with a polling day of 10th July. doktorb _words^deeds 17:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's RotPA and the relevent legislation ? I'm not being difficult, I just want to read it for myself, as this move appears to be a step change in the politicisation of the media. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 18:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Representation of the People Act 2000 available in paintful detail at the OPSI website. Although my knowledge of the Act is based on the 1983 Act, I'd be pretty sure that it has not, so far, been breached. I offer no judgement on whether that's a good or a bad thing. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 18:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any good lawyer at the Sun should (cough) be ready to stop Kelvin writing too much when the election starts proper (until the writ is moved, Kelvin and the Sun can pretty much write what they want). When the gun is fired, that's the difficult time, indeed I suspect he may not be able to write an article at all when he is a candidate but that could be hypercaution on my part. The ARO at East Yorkshire should be ready to act on anything if it's reported to him doktorb _words^deeds 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know the detail of how the Act affects newspapers, but I do know that he wouldn't be permitted to present a programme on broadcast media, nor to receive coverage from them more favourable than other candidates - indeed, as he has no track record of support in the constituency and is not representing a major party, he could be left out of debates and the like. But this isn't very relevant, as that's enforced by Ofcom anyhow. Warofdreams talk 19:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's actually quite readable, although the 2000 Act was just an update, the major change was the 1983 Act [2] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

←It's one of the few things enforced by OfGums that you can go to prison for. ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelvin MacKenzie not a credible candidate

Kelvin MacKenzie has said that he would get Rupert Murdoch to fund his campaign, but I read via that BBC[3] that this would be a violation of electoral law as Murdoch is a foreigner. Shouldn't we take out any references to Mackenzie as he's hardly a credible candidate? (I'm not saying he won't stand, but until he actually explains how he is to fund his campaign from a legal source he's not even a starter).--91.106.28.24 (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He has also stated that he is unable to fund himself, according to the Daily Record [4], so this potentially puts him further out of the picture. However I don't think that this enough to cause MacKenzie to be removed because it is probably that Murdock will find a way to fund him. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I added the information. It's Wikipedia compliant sourced and notable. Even if he doesn't stand, I'd argue that the fact that he was asked to by Rupert Murdoch is a notable enough event in UK politics to warrant a mention. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality on Nature of By-Election

In order to remain a neutral voice on this issue we need to be clear that this is a standard by-election and that David Davis's wish to use it to solely conduct a debate on the 42 day detention will not necessarily be fullfilled to his satisfaction. We probably also need to approach the issue that it is expected to be a farce or a pantomime by many political commentators and politicans. However I don't think that I can get the phrasing right on this, so I throw this open to the wider community of editors. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 08:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - it's a standard by-election. It's a matter for individual candidates whether they fight it on certain issues and offer no opinion others or whether they choose to contest it at all. It's also a matter for the electorate, if they vote on a candidates personal view or if they vote for him as a representitive of party views. If commentators/journalists are using such language as pantomime, then full disclosure of political affiliations needs to be made for balance, as it could just be spin to make someone look good or bad. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - there's nothing special about the by election as such. The nature of Davis' resignation is unusual, but not unique. Davis is using an unusual campaign tactic too, by seeking to discourage some parties from standing, yet to encourage others. There's no need for Wikipedia's editors to treat this by election any differently. John, not sure what you mean about full disclosure of political affiliations - are you referring to editors here?--91.106.28.24 (talk) 13:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Davis's resignation is unique. If you believe not, please cite an analogue... RodCrosby (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, take a look at Northern_Ireland_by-elections,_1986 when three different Unionist parties forced by elections in 15 seats.--91.106.17.78 (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

they were united in their strategy RodCrosby (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's very similar to the Bow and Bromley by-election, 1912 on which we should create an article. George Lansbury resigned to recontest his seat on a platform of votes for women, a policy strongly opposed by Asquith's Liberal government and supported by Labour, although not with universal enthusiasm. He lost. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

as often in politics, there was more to that than met the eye.A Life on the Left : George Lansbury (1859—1940) RodCrosby (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I've now created the article - please add any further details you have. Warofdreams talk 01:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure that a simple "See also" to Bow and Bromley is the most helpful for the reader: a sentence somewhere explaining the connection would be better. PamD (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps there needs to be a section in this article referring to Tatton (UK Parliament constituency) in United Kingdom general election, 1997, and any other UK parliamentary elections (by- or general) where one or more major parties declined to put forward a candidate? Not sure quite how it would be worded, or indeed whether there are others apart from Tatton! But it's relevant for the similarity, and would help the reader who's thinking "Wasn't there another one recently where a couple of main parties agreed not to stand, a bit like this one ... where was it?". Or create an article/list which would include this, with a clear title, and make a "See also" link. PamD (talk) 10:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No comments on my suggestion above, so have added new section on analagous elections (WikiDictionary definition: "bearing some resemblance or proportion"; seems the best word to encompass the above pair). I'm sure there are other examples which could usefully be added. PamD (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just seen the other analogue quoted above... will add. PamD (talk) 09:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a constructive suggestion. Establishing precident like this makes sense.

I would like to thank people for considering the neutrality of this page in a balanced way, including maintaining the link to only confirmed, noteable candidate with much experience in UK politics. You are restoring my faith in the Wikipedia although I remain too intimidated to directly contribute to this and other pages. The Surrealist Historian (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to echo the sentiment here, I have worked on this article and have been very impressed by the lack of any significant vandalism and constant attention to detail. Has there ever been a Wiki article with so many citations?! :). This is Wiki at its best, and I hope this will continue right up to polling day. doktorb _words^deeds 21:18, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Gemma Garrett and others

Gemma Garrett has also announced plans to contest this by-election so I've added a mention. It needs a reference though. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that the site is used for candidate lists for the next election I have used UKPolling but I know that may result in my wrists being slapped. However I have found a Sunday Times reference for one of the candidates so it's not all bad, heh. There is the Grimsby Times reference for the Generalist Party, which I have used.

I have emailed the England First Party to ask if they are willing to stand; any affirmative email I will post here to check if it's okay to use as a source. Any idea on the Greens? doktorb _words^deeds 21:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The Green Party is standing

Ok, I've just had a revision undone - fair enough - my source is weak by wiki standards as it relies on the fact that the announcement has only just been made and therefore doesn't have the best sources available yet. (also I needed to tidy it as i used the wrong markup)

The Green Party is standing a candidate, Shan Oakes (info http://www.y-hgreenparty.org.uk/shan.htm) in this election. "Although David Davis is correct on the issue of 42 days, we note his appalling record on many other areas of policy including LGBT issues, climate change and the human rights act. With no Labour or Liberal Democrat candidates the Green Party would be the only credible left of centre challenger in this by-election and we believe it is absolutely right that voters be given a credible alternative to David Davis". Will provide good source asap JimJay