David Davis has 25 by-election opponents

SW Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 07:55:40 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Start giggling now. There are 25 independent and wacky candidates who have decided it is a good use of their money to stand against Davis in Haltemprice and Howden.





This makes the self-styled defender of freedom's decision to stand against himself for his own safe seat even more ridiculous. Check out the list now. Even David Icke has been resurrected to add to the chaos.

This justifies our decision not to waste time joining in Davis's ego-trip. With any luck, he will be the one to go down in history as the wackiest on this list.

If they all lose their desposit, I suppose it will pay for the pointless by-election. Now here's a question. If voting was spread fairly evenly over so many candidates, would it be possible for someone to both lose their deposit and win the election?



tags: , , , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
David Davis has 25 by-election opponents | 47 comments (47 topical)

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#1)

by adwilliams134 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:44:14 PM GMT

That will be 24 lost deposits then.

And it's not a pointless by-election,  it's highlighting the fact that we were deliberately and blatantly lied to.

The only reason that Labour are not standing is because not only would Davis still win,  but because it's a single-issue byelection and that issue is the EU,  he would probably increase his vote and Labour would be lucky to keep their deposit thus rendering their position on the EU untenable.

Not that it matters really,  the main topics of the next election will not be of Labour's choosing. 

The tories will promise a referendum on the EU in their election manifesto. They'll also promise to scrap ID cards and the 42 day law.  Labour will have to promise all that and more - which it can't because it would be a complete U turn over to many major policies.

Go back to your constituencies and tell them - Prepare for opposition!!


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#3)

by NorthernMonkey on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 09:29:47 PM GMT

Of course Davis would win - it's his own safe seat!

And yes of course he'd increase his share of the vote - that's because he'd already eliminated his main rivals, the LibDems, before he announced his resignation.

Come on, wake up!


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#2)

by adwilliams134 on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 08:45:37 PM GMT

That will be 24 lost deposits then.

And it's not a pointless by-election,  it's highlighting the fact that we were deliberately and blatantly lied to.

The only reason that Labour are not standing is because not only would Davis still win,  but because it's a single-issue byelection and that issue is the EU,  he would probably increase his vote and Labour would be lucky to keep their deposit thus rendering their position on the EU untenable.

Not that it matters really,  the main topics of the next election will not be of Labour's choosing. 

The tories will promise a referendum on the EU in their election manifesto. They'll also promise to scrap ID cards and the 42 day law.  Labour will have to promise all that and more - which it can't because it would be a complete U turn over to many major policies.

Go back to your constituencies and tell them - Prepare for opposition!!


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#4)

by Free Radical on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:20:39 PM GMT

SW

I could hardly disagree more. There is nothing to laugh about whatsoever. My party, Labour, has allowed itself to become the party of authoritarianism in a manner that would make most of our forebears roll in their graves.

There is nothing funny about incarcerating people for six weeks, without charge and without their knowing what they are being investigated for. There is nothing funny about the relentless erosion of civil liberties, by Tories and Labour, but especially by "New Labour." There is nothing funny about the Labour Party failing to field a candidate. There is nothing funny about this byelection at all.

Let's hope you are still giggling at the next general election - especially if the Tories do promise to oppose ID cards and repeal the 42 days legislation because a lot of the liberal left will then have a very difficult choice to make.


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#12)

by jdc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:30:24 AM GMT

The liberal left and their pro-crime agenda can take a hike, frankly. The sooner we drive them out of the party and start welcoming ordinary working people back in, the better.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#14)

by e10rifles on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM GMT

Only the fear of getting barred from this site prevents me from responding in the appropriate way.

Suffice to say that if you think all ordinary working people support 42 days and anyone who opposes it is "pro-crime", you are enough of a lunatic to not merit a serious reply.

Smacks of the madness of that other far-right keyboard warrior, Shamik Das. Wonder if he's still around.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#18)

by jdc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:23:31 PM GMT

I have no strong feelings about 42 days, but the libertarian campaign isn't about that, and nor will it be the ultimate outcome sought by its Davisite hijackers, nor its leftist useful idiots. 

42 days is a wedge issue. The real agenda is to handicap the police in all sorts of other ways, taking away DNA evidence, CCTV, covert surveillance, search powers, and everything that keeps us that little bit away from anarchy (though, here in inner London, I do wonder, and I can't imagine E10 is much better).

You think the state is bad, and individuals are good. You'd rather have powerful criminals than powerful government officials. You are fully entitled to those wacky beliefs, but stop poisoning a socialist party with your libertarian nonsense, and let us get on with keeping people safe.

I'm backing Jill Saward.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#23)

by e10rifles on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:50:13 PM GMT

I have no idea what the hell you are on about. Libertarianism indeed.

This threat began with a posting about 42 day detention. Call it a wedge issue if you want. Nobody seriously thinks it is about anything other than Gordon trying to prove he's hard. He knows it won't get past the House of Lords.

I'd take you marginally less seriously if you didn't waste your time and mine telling me what I think.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#25)

by jdc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:02:17 PM GMT

It began with you talking about 'a relentless erosion of civil liberties by Labour and Tories'. I didn't exactly have to sit down with a spreadsheet to work out that you were upset by an increase in the state's power in a wider sense than the 42 days issue.

The Lib Dem Lord who leads on Terrorism thinks it's about more than Gordon being hard - he said he was completely convinced it would be necessary. As I said, it's not something I feel strongly about. CCTV, DNA database, proper jail terms, and searching suspects for drugs and weapons are things I feel strongly about.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#26)

by e10rifles on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:14:49 PM GMT

It wasn't me who wrote about 'a relentless erosion of civil liberties by Labour and Tories' actually. As a Marxist, it's quite refreshing to hear that I'm so anti-state. It's not something we get told very often.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#27)

by jdc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM GMT

I thought you wanted it to wither away?

Quite right, it wasn't, my bad - I clearly mixed myself up when you started referring to how the thread started.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#36)

by jkitleft on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 07:29:31 PM GMT

Tackling crime isn't about tough vs. soft. It's about smart vs. dumb.

Legalising drugs would be the equivalent of drastically increasing funding for the police. Drug crime only exists because of drugs prohibition. I don't support it for libertarian reasons, I support it because it would send crime crashing, and we would stop bankrolling terrorists and armed gangs. I am not a libertarian Thatcheite (an oxymoron imo): I would not support wittering away money from drugs legalisation into tax cuts for the rich.


Secondly, ID cards are a waste of money, and the government offered no evidence to say that 42 days would be effective. Instead of weakening habeas corpus, they could've strengthened it by allowing wire tap evidence in court. That isn't 'harder', but it's smarter.


But I have defended DNA databases and CCTV cameras, because they are most definitely smart, BECAUSE they lower crime.


This concept of liberty, has to include the fact that individual liberties such as freedom of speech/expression/press/religion and habeas corpus, can be balanced by the state enforcing liberty with universal healthcare/education/childcare/elderly care.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#19)

by bobbysilby on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM GMT

No I think its just members of Mosaic group E, the "urban intelligencia" who find it hard to accept that they are a marginal minority in society and everyone does not read the Independent.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#24)

by e10rifles on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:51:12 PM GMT

'Mosaic group E' are the only people who are against 42 days?

If you think that, you're officially a nutter.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#30)

by bobbysilby on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:13:03 AM GMT

Not all but most, and certainly all the whining ones on here. Though its curious how they did not have a problem with 28 days but giving the government the ability to extend it by another 2 weeks in the case of a specific threat with parliamentary approval, oh now thats crossing a line. Please, get a grip. Though then again its nutters like you who probably think a terrorist attack is "the price worth paying".


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#31)

by Free Radical on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 10:09:18 AM GMT

I suppose your intemperate remarks deserve a response (though I admit I hesitate). Many people, like me, the "whining ones" as you so eloquently put it, had a great problem with the 28 days legislation. I understand that, in the United States you can be held without charge for only two days, and 28 days is longer than most (if not all) the countries with a similar legal system. (I know the US government has attempted to bypass its own laws by holding people outside US territory - Guantanamo being only the most high profile example, but that is a separate issue).

But why should it surprise you that the longer you increase this period, the more opposition is generated? There does not seem any great mystery about that.

Even our House of Commons had the guts to resist the executive and reject 90 days.

As to whether people think a terrorist attack is a "price worth paying" - I find that a grossly offensive formulation of which you should be ashamed. It implies that those defending liberties are somehow unconcerned with terrorist atrocities against civilians - even in some way sharing responsibility -  which, if that is what you intend, would be a disgraceful slur.

There are two issues here:
Firstly do gross infringements of civil liberties deter or protect us from what we call terrorism? The evidence does not appear very convincing, and, in Northern Ireland you might conclude that the introduction of internment without trial (and indeed the torture of prisoners for which we were condemned by the European Court of Human Rights) was actually counterproductive. Where is your evidence that incarceration without charge (and without telling a person what they are being investigated for) for a period of six weeks will protect anyone from anything?

Secondly. A better way of expressing your offensive point might be to ask what price we put on our liberties? And since, for centuries, people have believed it is worth fighting and dying to defend liberty - why now are some people apparently suggesting that we might surrender our liberties to the state in order to protect us (perhaps) from some real but not enormous threat. Even during the second world war with bombs raining down daily and people dying in their thousands we were very careful about restricting liberties, and lifted these incursions such as internment, as soon as possible.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#33)

by bobbysilby on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 02:41:42 PM GMT

Please do not even start with comparisons, it is such a weak way of going about this debate but then I would expect nothing less. The United States has a much more strict regime in dealing with immigration violations than we do allowing terror suspects to be detained or deported, something we tried but was ruled out by the House of Lords. Equally; simply applying US style immigration rules would not benefit the UK due to much higher prevalence of home grown terrorism in Britain. To say that in the USA the period of pre charge detention is 2 days is entirely misleading, applying the same markers it is only 24 hours in Britain however for terrorism it is 28 days in the UK and indefinite in the USA.

 

As for comparing us with other countries, again fundamental differences in the legal systems throw the definition of "charged" right into the air. Joseph Fritzl for instance has been held for over 42 days in Austria without what we would consider being charged.

 

If you want to compare to say Spain who brought people to justice following the Madrid bombings without an extended period of detention it might be worth pointing out that the evidence collected was down to the use of a compulsory national ID card.

 

Of the people held up to the maximum already several have been convicted of involvement in some of the most serious terrorist plots in history including the attempt to bring down ten passenger aircraft from Heathrow airport which would have had a higher death toll than 9/11. While you want to talk in abstract terms about non physical notions such as liberty I offer some concrete examples. 


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#35)

by Free Radical on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 05:55:01 PM GMT

"While you want to talk in abstract terms about non physical notions such as liberty I offer some concrete examples"

Well that sums your attitude to liberty quite nicely doesn't it.

Not only do you slur your opponents, for which you have failed to apologise, but you seem entirely dismissive about liberty. Furthermore whilst "liberty" is a "non physical notion" the consequences of a lack of it are very concrete indeed - we only have to look at Zimbabwe, or a host of other nations around the world.

Here is what Winston Churchill said about such "non-physical notions":

All great things are simple, and many can be expressed in single words: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope



[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#38)

by bobbysilby on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:25:01 AM GMT

The ultimate liberty would be natural law under your logic but security and liberty are not exclusive concepts rather somewhat dependent on each other.

 

Yes I am well aware of the state of civil liberties in many countries in the world, I am a British expat living in an authoritarian dictatorship and find it quite laughable when the liberal left try to compare Britain to various regimes around the world. 


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#39)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 05:01:44 PM GMT

I understand your first point - and natural law has a lot to be said for it. In practice security and liberty are not exclusive - only a fool would have suggested that when the whole society was imperiled in World War II, that normal liberties might be easily maintained. But what concerns me is a relentless chipping away at traditional liberties over the past 40 years. Roy Jenkins as home secretary was apologetic about the introduction of the first Prevention of Terrorism Act which he described as "draconian" but we have far exceeded those powers taken by the state today.

You may find the liberal left position "laughable," but the point is that there is a continual struggle between forces of authoritarianism and liberalism. If Britain is relatively free I would like to keep it that way. I believe even former Tory Prime Minister Ted Heath expressed fears that we might end up as a police state.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#41)

by jdc on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:19:45 PM GMT

Tory Prime Ministers have done so before - Winston Churchill accused Labour of wanting to introduce a Gestapo during the 1945 election campaign.

Standard stuff from the good old days, when the left supported a strong state, and the right opposed it.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#42)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 10:59:35 PM GMT

You are right of course that the Labour Party generally supported a strong state which it saw as socially interventionist and a force for good - it wasn't a vision of an oppressive state in the sense of attacking civil liberties, rather things like a National Health Service (locally accountable) and nationalised industries.

There is a tradition in the Tory party of opposing a strong state. Thatcher faced both ways - attacking the state's social provision and nationalised industries whilst building up a more authoritarian and oppressive state apparatus - a trend which has unfortunately continued ever since. There was once a wonderful Steve Bell cartoon in the Guardian with Thatcher saying "let's roll back the state - right over your head!"


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#43)

by bobbysilby on Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 10:28:43 AM GMT

If I criticise the Chinese government in public I could be arrested for "subversion" which carries lengthy jail terms here, as does displaying an image of the Dali Lama or showing support for any independence movement which includes not recognising Taiwan as part of the PRC. Most of the population seems completely unable to differentiate between being critical of the government and being critical of the nation.

 

A police state is not built on laws or police powers, its built on the inability of a population to think criticially towards its own government. When defending the government and all their policies becomes an extention of patriotism then your in trouble, I somehow think the UK is neither there or heading in that direction which is why I find the constant use of phrases such as "authoritarian", "police state" and "dictatorship" totally laughable.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#45)

by Snowy on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:18:46 AM GMT


The point, for me, is not how these powers can be used but how these powers can be misused.

Giving the police the power to lock up anybody suspected of being a terrorist who they don't have enough evidence to charge, effectively means they can lock up anyone they want. It means you, your gran, anybody. It doesn't mean muslims or Jews or black people or IT workers. It means anyone at all. Mahatma Gandhi was locked up several times and considered a terrorist. Nelson Mandela has been on the terrorist list in the USA up till the year of his 90th birthday.  An 82-year old labour party member was arrested under the Anti-Terrorism act in the UK for doing nothing more than saying "Nonsense!" to Tony Blair.

If the powers are there, they will be used by the police and they will be misused by the police. If a case is too terribly complicated to find enough evidence to charge someone and it'll take many police man-hours to look for the evidence, surely it is ridiculous to keep an innocent person for longer than is necessary instead of just deploying more police to investigate the evidence. This government wants to keep innocent people locked away for longer so that it can scrimp on police funding.

You might be perfectly happy to live in a country where you can get lengthy jail terms for criticising the government but just because the laws there are worse than here, still doesn't make it ok. 



[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#46)

by SW on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM GMT

Walter said it to Jack Straw, not Tony Blair. And it got him an NC position!


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#47)

by bobbysilby on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:15:20 PM GMT

Perfectly valid points, however fails to address the key issue that an extension to 42 days requires Parliamentary approval and for specific threats. So for instance when the Heathrow liquid explosive plot was foiled and those people were arrested, the Home Secretary would be able to go to the commons if the Police request it and ask for an extension to the 28 days up to a max of 42. Thats the actual policy which was passed by MPs.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#48)

by Snowy on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 03:52:03 AM GMT

It is dangerous for people to be naive enough to assume that powers taken to detain people with no charge will not be open to abuse in the future.
As much of a fuss was made about this policy, most of the public don't really understand what the fuss is about. Do you think that an equal level of fuss would be generated if a future government decided to tinker with the policy ever so slightly and drop the safeguards? Do you think that it'd be difficult in any way for them to argue that those rules were 'impractical' and hampered the police?



 


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#5)

by Andrea on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 10:37:03 PM GMT

I root for Mad Cow Girl in H&H


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#6)

by otware on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:36:47 AM GMT

I think that the greens ought to easily save their deposit.


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#7)

by Stuart King on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 08:31:21 AM GMT

Does Haltemprice civic centre have a stage big enough for them all!?


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#10)

by repub on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:43:32 AM GMT

At least Labour can't lose two deposits in a row now...


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#8)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM GMT

Could the self-proclaimed champion of liberty soon be about to hold the record for defeating the largest number of candidates ever during one election?

Even in multi-seat constituencies I can't find a candidate list this long from amongst my books...

But then again I didn't visit the school that lucky John Loony did!


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#9)

by Free Radical on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 10:09:12 AM GMT

Do your books tell you when Labour last failed to field a candidate in a byelection (apart from the Martin Bell case)... it's a genuine question as I have been unable to find the answer to this...


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#11)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM GMT

Hmmm, if I was an MP I'd be able to get my nanny to do this for me I suppose, but as it is, I'll have a root through and see if I can fine out - my gut feeling is it was sometime around 83/84 but I will now go and check...


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#13)

by fluffymike on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:33:44 PM GMT

OK, omitting bye-elections in the North of Ireland, and University seats... the best I can find is ....

Glasgow Bridgeton 29/8/46

and for England
West Middlesborough 1945 - Liberal elected unopposed...


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#15)

by Free Radical on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 12:50:41 PM GMT

Many thanks Mike, that's interesting.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#16)

by Snowy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:28:25 PM GMT

I can't believe that you think this government empowering the police to lock you up for 6weeks without evidence or telling you why, is something to giggle about!!!


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#17)

by SW on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:04:10 PM GMT

Personally I was opposed to 42 days - but that is nothing to do with Davis's ridiculous vanity project. A man who opposes equality, favours capital punishment and tougher immigration restrictions is just posturing with this issue as part of Tory infighting. No-one has yet explained how doing a backroom deal with your main opponents and then easily winning your safe parliamentary seat back again proves anything about anything. Except the size of his ego and the gullibility of people making comments.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#29)

by Snowy on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 01:37:05 AM GMT

I don't think it's about proving anything at all. I think it's a stunt designed to highlight his own agenda for the time of the by-election campaign - ie, the dangers of the powers Gordon Brown pushed through parliament.

You and I are both against 42 days imprisonment without charge but I think most of the public don't realise what a big deal it is. I think David Davis was so annoyed at losing the vote in the commons and that most of the public seem to back it that he thought he'd do something desperate to put the issue under the spotlight, and I applaud that.

You can call it an ego-trip and demonstrative of shocking vanity and you'd probably be right but at the end of the day he looks like he has guts and stands up for what he believes in (very much unlike how Gordon Brown is perceived).  



[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#20)

by purplemeanie on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 02:49:48 PM GMT

Good that the Greens are standing.  I'm glad that people will have the choice of voting for a mainstream, left-ish, genuinely anti-authoritarian party.  I hope Tony Benn et al are going to be going up and speaking in support of Shan Oakes, not David Davis.

http://shanoakes.blogspot.com/

(includes details of how to help or donate to campaign).

Personally (and i write as a member of no party, since i resigned my lifelong labour membership last year) i think it would be fantastic if the greens won.  They are the only party pursuing sensible policies that prioritise the real areas where we need to take action, including a willingness to take on big business.  In contrast New Labour pretends the environment is an issue that can be solved by us all recycling more and consumers paying the full price of rising fuel costs, whilst business freedom to profit from polllution remains sacrosanct.

I despair of some of the posters on here (but hooray for E10rifles and freeradical).  There's no contradiction between civil liberties and the quality of life for ordinary working people, it is largely working class people who suffer when we dismantle rights to fair trials etc.  furthermore, the greatest threat to both quality of life and civil liberties (according to our own security services) is the societal collapse that looms unless we prevent climate catastrophe.

 


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#21)

by jdc on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:20:55 PM GMT

" it is largely working class people who suffer when we dismantle rights to fair trials etc"

I haven't proposed dismantling rights to fair trials.

Working class people will suffer disproportionately as we crack down on crime, but they will also benefit disproportionately - they are over-represented amongst both perpetrators and victims, that's a basic demographic point which proves very little.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#22)

by otware on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 03:35:20 PM GMT

I would certainly vote Green in this by-election. They should get 2nd place easily (their only real opponents seem to be the NF). Thy sadly don't stand a chance of winning, but hopefully they will do well enought to drive home their message.


[ Parent ]

Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#28)

by Wiseman on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 09:19:09 PM GMT

The way we are going there could be many more of us losing our deposits. We are a joke at present.  We need radical chnage and now.

Wiseman


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#32)

by Diversity on Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:53:22 AM GMT

Labour lost a deposit in Henley. A lot of us saw that coming, but Labour still was in there fighting. In Haltemprice and Howden - an area where the LibDems have been the menace and there was a chance of a head to head with the Tories - no Labour candidate. It fels like giving up.


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#37)

by bobbysilby on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 01:19:28 AM GMT

Police state? If you actually lived in one you wouldn't make that comment about the UK so flippantly.


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#40)

by JaneyD on Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 08:25:55 PM GMT

To pick up the original question; Is it possible to lose your deposit and win the election? I'm pretty sure the answer is no. If you win the election you get your deposit back irrespective of the percentage you polled. 

I don't think it's ever happened since the threshold went down to 5% in the 1980s though. And not even sure it ever happened before that, except perhaps in the university seats.
 
As for how things work for the transferable vote elections... If you have to get a certain percentage of first preferences on the first round then it becomes a possibility that  candidate could poll less than 5% and then go on to win.  And if they win they get back their deposit! 


Re: David Davis has 25 by-election opponents (#44)

by SW on Mon Jul 07, 2008 at 12:39:50 PM GMT

Without wishing to revive this posting, I was tickled by the full list of candidates and their reasons for standing. Davis is about halfway down and seems as nutty as most of them (Jill Saward excepted). Unfortunately he will win and be even more unbearable.


David Davis has 25 by-election opponents | 47 comments (47 topical)