Peter
Junior Chimp
Posts: 6,030
Political Matrix E: -0.77, S: -7.48
|
|
« on: August 28, 2014, 04:26:54 PM » |
|
Haven't been in for a while, but thought I would offer some constitutional knowledge to the by-election questions.
I think it would be unthinkable that Osborne could refuse an appointment to Northstead Manor/Chiltern Hundred. He would undoubtedly be advised by government lawyers/civil servants/constitutional experts that he would set an awful precedent. The only reference I can find to a refusal to appoint was in 1842 - I have no idea why it was refused.
Parliament is in recess until 1 Sept, and then again from 12 Sept to 13 Oct for party conferences. This is important. Under the terms of the Recess Elections Act 1975 the Speaker is required to issue a writ for a by-election if petitioned by 2 MPs during a recess. This is rarely used, but is on the books: Should we make it to the conference recess period, expect 2 MPs to be found.
There is potential for fun and games if the writ is moved during 1-12 Sept. Technically the motion to move the writ can contain many details, including when the Speaker should actually issue his writ. In modern times, no directive of time is usually given and the Speaker does so within 24 hours. Historically this was not always the case, and the Speaker was directed to issue his writ on a particular date - this definitely was done in 1983 for the Cardiff NW when Conservatives delayed the issuance of the writ by a few weeks (in the end, the 1983 general election superceded the by-election).
Should the Tories wish to prevent a conference season recess writ (which could not be filibustered or voted down) and a delayed by-election, this would be their best bet - pass a writ quickly in September with some date long in the future. By convention the writ is issued within 3 months of the vacancy, so technically they could direct the Speaker to issue at the end of November with a by-election date sometime in the New Year and be considered to be completely within the existing conventions.
Whilst constitutionally permissible, politically this would be crazy - UKIP would exploit it massively in the media and would tar the existing political classes as totally disconnected and operating within their own rules with no regard for the constituents who were unrepresented.
|