timrollpickering

Merry Christmas!

2025-12-25T10:00:00.004+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas!

2024-12-25T09:00:00.001+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

Some thoughts the morning after

2024-07-05T08:42:00.003+01:00

The golden age of blogging roughly coincided with the last Parliament when the Conservatives were in opposition. Blogs played a role in the party debate as it sought to work out the direction to go in. After that other media took over but now seems a good time to put fingers to keys once more with some early thoughts on where the Conservatives go from here.

It is possible to win the 2029 general election

Many may think that statement is ridiculous. But politics has become ever more volatile. After multiple recent elections the commentary has declared one major party smashed up and heading for inevitable oblivion whilst the other is seemingly set to dominate politics for decades to come - only for the next election to turn all that on its head and see the pattern inverted. If the Conservatives get their act together quickly, sort out the many problems that have beset them and make the right pitch to the country then it is quite possible to overturn Labour's majority - their vote is not that high after all.

It is possible 2024 could be only a stepping stone to the party falling even further

In 1923 the Liberal Party won 159 seats. The following year, one hundred years ago, it fell to just 40 seats. Since then it has never won more than at most 72 seats at any election. It is a salutary reminder how a party can fall suddenly and rapidly.

There is a real danger this could happen to the Conservatives, especially if the party gets self-indulgent, talks to itself, pursues core vote strategies, continues to alienate people and slides into irrelevancy. The party must recognise this danger and void it.

This is not Canada in the 1990s

During the campaign with all the doom and gloom there was renewed interest in the 1993 Canadian general election when a new leader took the Progressive Conservatives from majority government to just two seats, with a new challenger on the right called Reform. Many have been privately relieved to have not fallen so far. The subsequent eventual fate of the Progressive Conservatives may seem alluring. They fought two further elections against Reform (or the Canadian Alliance as it became in 2000) before merging with them in 2003 after a long campaign to "Unite the Right". But one can't simply pick stretches of political history and assume all one has to do is copy what happened in another country. For starters by the time a merger happened several key figures were no longer in leadership.

A merger with Reform UK and/or a Nigel Farage leadership is not the answer

There are already knee-jerk calls for mergers and many wishing Farage would become the next Conservative leader. This would just transfer all the problems with Farage to the Conservatives. The man is politically toxic amongst the many voters we need to regain. He is also not leadership material. Each of his previous leaderships has seen him lose parliamentarians. He proved unable to sort out Ukip to make it a smoothly functioning organisation. His current party may be a party (the "Reform UK Ltd" jibe is annoying - lots of parties have company registrations for operational purposes) but it is a top down brand based around the leader with no real structure or democracy. Farage is an airwave politician, making his point through media. Time and again he has shown himself incapable of building a grassroots party operation, instead just making noise. Such is his political toxicity that Leavers had to do everything they could to make sure he did not get control of the official Leave campaign in the referendum. There is nothing to suggest he would be an asset to the Conservative Party, whether electorally or organisationally. Instead he would be political poison.

Now is not the time to be selecting a candidate for Prime Minister in 2029

We have just suffered a bruising defeat. The party needs to sort out a lot of organisation and have a proper debate about its direction. Even the method of how to chose the leader has come under renewed attention. To simply enter a contest for a long-term leader right now and try to filter all the questions through just two candidates whittled down by MPs would be chaotic. Instead we need a caretaker leadership to sort out the party internally.

There is an obvious, qualified candidate for this. A person who sits in a seat that has long-term swung heavily against the party and had a slender majority in 2019. But instead of bowing out they chose to stand by the maxim it is better to be a loser than a quitter. They know what it's like to be leader. It is time for the party to conscript as its interim leader Iain Duncan Smith.

(Footnote: For those wondering when the Liberals won 72 seats, I'm counting the combined total for the three Liberal factions in 1931. The looser nature of parties in the era makes it hard to determine just when some groups stopped being an organised faction that took disputes to the electorate and became a separate political party.)

Merry Christmas!

2023-12-25T09:00:00.001+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas!

2022-12-25T09:30:00.002+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

Merry Christmas!

2021-12-25T07:49:00.006+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

(One day I will get around to blogging a bit more frequently.)

Merry Christmas!

2020-12-25T09:30:00.001+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone! This year Christmas is a bit different from the norm but the spirit is undeterred.

Merry Christmas!

2019-12-25T10:00:00.000+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

#DeniedMyVote - what happened?

2019-05-31T19:15:00.005+01:00

In the European Parliament elections last week, a number of EU citizens resident in the United Kingdom reported that they were unable to vote here, finding that paperwork hadn't been processed, their names were crossed off the register and officials were telling them to vote in their "home country". What exactly happened and why?

I have to admit this is probably the most obscure part of election law in regards to registration. It only comes up at one election that comes along every five years and only applies to one small section of the electorate. Consequently it's not something well known about by political activists or often handed down from agent to agent. As a result the rationale behind the procedure is obscure, but this post is my best bet.

The arrangements seem to stem from EU law and work as follows:

All citizens of European Union member states who meet the other qualifying criteria (age, residency etc...) are eligible to vote for the European Parliament.
It is assumed as a default that they will be exercising their vote in their country of citizenship (called "home country", though many object to this term).
Those resident in other EU member states are assumed to still be exercising their franchise in their country of citizenship, whether by postal vote, voting locally at a facility run by their embassy or by travelling to their country of citizenship.
Those who wish to vote in their country of residence are required to make an additional declaration that they will be exercising their vote in their country of residence and not in their country of citizenship.
EU citizens resident in another country who qualify for that country's domestic franchise (in the case of the UK this is Cypriot, Irish and Maltese citizens including anyone with dual nationality with one of the other 24 EU member states) are treated as domestic, not EU, voters and so do not have to go through this process.

As set out in my previous post #DeniedMyVote - The position across the EU, at least most EU member states operate a system that requires EU citizens resident in them to take active steps in order to be able to transfer their European Parliament franchise to their country of residence. Some seem to incorporate it into general registration, some have a specific registration for EU citizens and/or European Parliament elections and some have a stand-alone procedure for existing voters on the register. The United Kingdom has the last method.

Thus an EU citizen resident in the United Kingdom has to complete an additional form. For voters in Great Britain this is the "European Union citizens – European Parliament voter registration form (GB)" known as the "UC1" form, though confusingly that term does not actually appear on the form making it harder to search for. For voters in Northern Ireland it's the "European Union citizens - European Parliament voter registration form (NI)" form or "EC6", a term which does actually appear on the form.

(Amongst the many confusions seen on this, frustratingly some British councils have been talking about "EC6" forms. I hope nobody was given the wrong one to fill in.)

It seems the form has to be returned to election authorities in the country of citizenship. With many countries having elections run at the municipal level, not just the United Kingdom, that's an awful lot of agencies involved to screw things up. It's not clear if the agency in the country of citizenship has to sign things off before the EU citizen can be added to the relevant roll at the other end, or if the local agency can go straight ahead. But this makes it impossible to set things up for people to sign at polling stations and vote there and then.

Much of the mess originates in this entire procedure being little known about and understood, rather bureaucratic (especially if the forms need to be processed at another agency in a different country before the EU citizen can be admitted to the local roll) and easy to mess up. It's also clear that a lot of confusion has been generated by people who don't know the difference between being on the register and having had the updated category allocated. Much of the wording is focused on the former and reports suggest many people inadvertently got confirmation of the wrong thing. Also there is no actual legal requirement for local election services to send out the forms to EU citizens on the register.

However many people report sending the forms in or even hand delivering them before the deadline yet finding they were not processed in time. This is a clear failing, although it's likely to impact at the local election services end.

The reason for people's names appearing crossed out on the register is clear. As explained in my previous post Who can vote for what bodies?, there is a joint electoral register covering six different categories of voters across combinations of three different franchises. When a voter is ineligible to vote in a particular election, their name is crossed out so they cannot vote polling stations but the staff can see the reason and explain.

Overall this system is cumbersome and a mess, but being an EU wide thing it seems hard to fix. Obviously leaving the EU will resolve it in an instance, but for other countries where similar problems have been reported there will probably need to be modifications to make the forms more directly accessible - maybe incorporating them into basic registration?

#DeniedMyVote - The position across the EU

2019-05-30T13:43:00.000+01:00

This is a long information post. It's to support my next post looking at the details of how European Union citizens resident in the UK can vote here in European Parliament elections. As part of this I look at what the requirements are across the whole European Union.

In a lot of the talk about #DeniedMyVote there has been conflicting claims about whether or not other EU member states have similar requirements of EU citizens having to complete additional forms in order to be able to cast their European Parliament vote in their country of residence. Rather than trading anecdotes, let's have a quick look at what the actual procedures are.

The EUROPA - Your Europe European Union website has information for EU nationals residing in countries other than their country of citizenship at Your Europe > Citizens > Residence formalities > Elections abroad > European elections. Although not exhaustive, there's information about how to register to vote for the European elections in each member state. So just how many states have a declaration process requiring non-national EU citizens to complete extra steps in order to register for the European Parliament elections? The answer is at least most of them:

Austria:

"...voters must be registered on the European electoral roll in Austria at least 72 days before the European elections."

Nothing specific about transfers though the term "European electoral roll" suggests a specific franchise roll instead of a combined one. The page links through to the Austrian government site but only in German.

Belgium:

"...non-Belgian nationals must:
...

be registered on the electoral roll in Belgium

not be registered to vote in their home country

To inform the authorities where they will vote for European Parliamentary elections, non-Belgian EU nationals should contact the Belgian municipality where they reside no later than 31 January 2019."

Bulgaria:

"When voting for Members of the European Parliament from the Republic of Bulgaria, citizens of other EU Member States are entered on the electoral roll on the basis of a standard statement to the municipal administration at their address of residence in Bulgaria no later than 40 days before election day."

Croatia:

"In order to vote in the Republic of Croatia nationals of other EU Member States must apply to the office responsible for their place of permanent or temporary residence in Croatia to be entered in the electoral roll, and must do so no later than 30 days before the date of the elections.
They must include the following with their application to be entered in the electoral roll:

a declaration stating their nationality, their place of permanent residence in the Republic of Croatia, where applicable, and the place or constituency in their home Member State in whose electoral roll their name was last entered

a declaration that they will vote in Croatia only"

Cyprus:

"To inform the authorities where they will vote for European Parliament elections, foreign EU citizens should contact the Ministry of Interior."

Czechia:

"The EP election electoral roll is managed by Czech municipal authorities. As an EU national, you can be placed on the electoral roll if:

you submit a request

you submitted a request in the previous EP elections and have not asked to be deleted from the electoral roll since

you are on the electoral roll for municipal elections and ask to have your information transferred to the EP electoral roll."

Denmark:
There's not a lot of text on the site. However if we follow the link through to the Danish government we find:

"If you are an EU citizen and reside in Denmark, you can only be enrolled in the electoral register for the election in Denmark upon application. The reason is that EU citizens who live in a member state other than their home country can usually choose if they want to participate in the elections in their home country or their country of residence. However, you can only vote in one place, and thus you cannot vote both in the elections in Denmark and in your home country.

If you want to vote in the elections in Denmark, you must fill out the application form (see the application form below) and enclose documentation for the information stated on the application form."

Estonia:

"To inform the authorities where they will vote for European elections or stand as a candidate, EU citizens residing in Estonia must first submit a one-time application to be entered in the polling list. The application shall be submitted to the chief processor of the population register not later than on the thirtieth day before election day."

Finland:

"EU citizens need to enroll with the voting register to vote, for the first time, in Finland in European elections.
They should contact the local register office and file a written notification 80 days before the election day at the latest to inform that they wish to vote in the elections in Finland."

Again there's a link through to the domestic government website with a bit more:

"When a person has been entered in the voting register in Finland, the Finnish authority will notify the relevant authority in his or her home state of the registration, and his or her personal data will be removed from the electoral register of this state. According to the EU Act concerning the elections, no one may vote in more than one Member State of the European Union in the same election. EU citizens may vote either in their home state or in the state they live in."

Link to the declaration form.

France:

"When registering on the list of EU citizens, you should provide a written statement that you will exercise your right to vote in France only."

Germany:

"Foreign EU citizens should contact their German municipality of residence to inform the authorities where they will vote in European Parliament elections."

Greece:

"To register on special electoral rolls, you must:
...

fill in a formal declaration form

...
Voting in the European elections is compulsory for everybody on the electoral roll. If you don't vote, you may be sent to prison for a period of 1 month to a year.
If you wish to vote for political parties and candidates from your home EU country, you may contact its Embassy or Consulate in Greece."

Hungary:
The information for Hungary doesn't seem to cover this. It describes how to register but it's not clear if this is exclusively for the European Parliament elections (and thus has the declaration built in?) or if there's a more general process. There's a link to the National Election Office website but it's in Hungarian.

Ireland:

"To inform the authorities where they will vote for European Parliament elections, foreign EU citizens should contact the relevant local authority in Ireland or visit the Register of Electors website."

Ireland appears to require registration for each election. The form for EU citizens (other than British) includes both registration and a declaration. The declaration form needs to be officially witnessed.

Italy:

"You must inform the Italian national authorities where you intend to vote in the European Parliament elections when you register on the electoral roll in the municipality where you live. When registering, you must declare that you will vote only in Italy."

Lithuania:

"Foreign EU citizens need to register to vote in the European elections (foreign EU citizens need to be permanent residents of Lithuania 65 days before election day) and to submit a formal declaration that they want to vote in Lithuania.
In order to be registered, the deadline to submit the above-mentioned formal declaration is 25 days before election day.
The rules to be included into electoral roll are the same as for Lithuanian nationals, but foreign EU citizens need to submit the above mentioned declaration form.
To inform the authorities where they will vote for European elections, foreign EU citizens should contact the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania."

Luxembourg:
There isn't specific information here but there are links to the registrar's website:

"In support of their application for registration, nationals from other EU Member States must present the following:

a formal declaration specifying:

* their nationality, their date and place of birth, their last address in their country of origin and their address in Luxembourg;

* where applicable, on the electoral register in which local area or district in the country of origin they were last registered;

* that they will only exercise their right to vote in elections for the European Parliament in Luxembourg;

* that they have not been stripped of the right to vote in their country of origin by individual court order or by administrative decision. These decisions must be subject to a judicial review. If this is the case, the interested party must mention that the loss of the right to vote is due to the residence conditions imposed by their country of origin;

* a current valid identity document.

False declarations are subject to penalties."

Malta:

"When you register to vote, you will need to specify whether you want to vote in Malta or in your home country. If you choose to vote in Malta, the Electoral Commission will inform your home country accordingly."

Netherlands:
No information on the site at all, just a link to their election agency which doesn't say anything about this either:

Poland:

"EU citizens who have not previously been placed on the electoral roll should apply to the municipal authority responsible for the place where they are domiciled.
A copy of their passport or other form of ID and a written declaration (indicating the number and date of the residence card issued by the provincial governor and the address and the constituency where the EU citizen is on the electoral roll in their country of origin) should be attached to the application.
The declaration should state that the applicant wishes to exercise their electoral rights in Poland and has not been deprived of electoral rights in their country of origin.
...
EU citizens who are not Polish citizens should contact the municipal or city authority responsible for their place of residence in order to make it known where they intend to vote."

Portugal:

"EU citizens can register with the registry commissions (comissões recenseadoras) or the Aliens and Borders Department (Serviço de Estrangeiros e Fronteiras, SEF). They are then registered in the constituency corresponding to their place of residence as stated in their valid residence document (título de residência).
For this purpose they must:

submit a valid identity document

provide proof of legal residence in Portugal, in the form of an EU citizen's registration certificate (Certificado de Registo de cidadão da UE) or an EU citizen's certificate of permanent residence.

Voting is voluntary, so there is no penalty of any kind for not doing so.
However, voting simultaneously in the European elections in both Portugal and another EU country is punishable by a prison sentence of up to one year and a fine of up to 50 days."

Romania:

"As an EU citizen, you have to register in a special electoral roll to be able to vote in Romania. You need to submit your request in writing to the mayor of the place of your domicile, accompanied by a copy of a valid identity document."
Otherwise nothing about declarations but it's possible the application for the special roll incorporates it."

Slovakia:

"Citizens of other EU countries need to register to vote in the European elections. The municipality will add electors who are citizens of another EU country to the electoral list on request. This application must be submitted by the EU citizen to the municipality in which they reside no later than 40 days before the day of the election. Otherwise, they will no longer have the right to enroll on the electoral list."

Again there's nothing about declarations.

Spain:

"EU citizens need to register in the Municipal Register and also formally express their wish to exercise the right to vote in Spain so that they can be put on the electoral roll of foreigners residing in Spain (CERE) for European elections."

Sweden:

"To vote in the European elections, you must be
...

an EU citizen registered in Sweden 30 days before the elections. You must also inform the county authority (länstyrelse) that you wish to vote in Sweden rather than in the country of which you are a citizen."

United Kingdom:

"UK and EU citizens in the UK need to register to vote in European Parliament elections."

And nothing further on the site but a link through to the government website:

"If you're a citizen of an EU country (other than the UK, Ireland, Malta and Cyprus) who's resident in the UK, you can vote in either the UK or your home country.
If you want to vote in the UK you must be registered to vote. Contact electoral authorities in your home country (where you're a citizen) if you want to vote there."

Information about declarations is noticeably absent.

Most of these reference some kind of formal procedure for an EU citizen to formally declare they're exercising their European Parliament in their country of residence and not of their country of citizenship. (The use of the term "home country" for the country of citizenship has caused some outrage on social media but is used so often as to be a standard legal term.) Not every country's information mentions it, and it's possible that some of the countries which have compulsory voting, whether enforced (Belgium and Luxembourg) or not (Bulgaria and Greece) invert the process. But it seems clear the standard assumption is that an EU citizen will be voting in their country of citizenship and they must take active steps to be able to vote in their country of residence.

This is so widespread it seems clear this is a requirement of EU Law, even though hardly anyone has identified the specific law. It's also notable that in a lot of countries the declaration is a separate procedure from registering for local government elections (and, confusingly, some seem to make registration for European Parliament elections a separate affair altogether).

Few state what happens to the declarations, but the information for Finland is clear that the declaration is reported back to the country of citizen's electoral authorities to prevent them exercising the vote there. This means it would be impossible to operate this procedure at polling stations and that this was not an option the UK could have adopted, despite some calling for it.

So overall this procedure seems to be a creation of the EU rather than the UK, showing that those making wild claims about "voter suppression" don't know what they're talking about. It's an administrative arrangement that sounds good in principle (and could indeed be adopted by the UK against concerns about people registering & voting in two places at once) but is a bureaucratic quagmire that isn't well publicised (I've seen claims made that it doesn't exist in countries that have it) or processed well.

Finally it's notable that in a lot of EU countries voter registration is handled by local government, just as it is here. This can't make for easy exchange of information between countries.

#DeniedMyVote - Postal votes

2019-05-30T13:35:00.001+01:00

In a further post I'll be looking at the problems EU citizens residing in the UK had with voting in the European elections last week but for now a quick look at the other reported element, postal ballot papers arriving too late to be returned in time.

Postal voting has been around for a while but has steadily grown over the years, particularly after 2001 when postal voting on demand was introduced. (Previously it was only available to those with good reason for being unable to get to their designated local polling station, such as employment, education, ill health, holidays or living on an island without its own polling station.) Note that provision is more restricted in Northern Ireland. It is very unlikely that the on demand provision will be curtailed again, not least because many political activists spend general election polling days outside their own home area and postal voting allows them to still vote with ease.

At the same as postal voting has increased, postal services have continued to decline. Long gone are the days when a person could receive a letter at the breakfast table inviting them to afternoon tea somewhere in town and have the time to compose and send a reply that would be received by the host in time to prepare. Collections and deliveries are less frequent, such that it now takes longer to send something out and get a reply back in time.

Elections are run on a surprisingly tight timetable, with just four weeks between the close of nominations and polling day, with a further requirement that all votes must be with the local Returning Officer's team by the close of polling. There is limited time in which to get the ballot papers printed and sent off.

Postal votes are normally dispatched around eleven working days before polling day, which is generally enough time domestically although it would help if election services across the country aimed for better consistency of expectations. There have been many cases of people asking for one due to a holiday but it doesn't arrive before they go away despite their social media being full of others casting their postal votes.

However international postal services are another matter and the situation is not helped by election services that use consolidation services to send a whole bundle to a remailer to send on at cheaper local rates. There are countries that no longer have universal daily collections and deliveries (if they ever did), and indeed many such countries only require their own postal votes to be sent & post marked by the close of polling, not received. Reply envelopes may not have the quickest postage option on them. As a result many people have reported receiving their postal vote packs far too late to be able to return them in time to be counted and some have even reported receiving their votes after the declaration of results.

The short amount of time from confirmation the European elections were taking place to polling meant that many were caught unprepared (and as very few local government ballot papers are sent overseas there weren't off the shelf contracts in place for the council elections that could be adapted) and the length of the ballot paper would have added to delay because of the limited number of printers that can handle it, but reports of overseas postal votes arriving too late have come up in other elections and referendums that have had rather more time to prepare. However they haven't received so much attention but this is not something can be easily ignored or dismissed as a one-off problem.

It is possible that the UK's postal services will be further curtailed in years to come, placing greater pressure on the tight election timetable if postal votes can't be sent out and returned in good time. Various solutions exist, ranging from internet voting to a longer period between nominations and polling to allowing postal votes to arrive after polling day at the cost of instant overnight final results, but all bring their own drawbacks and would provoke resistance.

The overseas votes are already facing this problem and again some solution could be found, but it's hard to see the timetable being extended or more radical solutions such as internet voting being introduced purely for them. Some countries have overseas voting at embassies, but they often don't have the requirement for all ballot papers to be in with the local Returning Officer by the close of poll. Perhaps embassies could be given the task of printing and dispatching ballot papers locally as a means to cut down on the transit time (and maybe even receiving them, though I don't know how workable a solution that is).

Longer term a number of problems with overseas voting may be better solved by introducing dedicated ex pat constituencies (as already happen in other countries) that could have their own timetables and arrangements rather than being at the mercy of the domestic timetable.

Who can vote for what bodies?

2019-05-25T00:49:00.002+01:00

Amongst the many comments about the elections this week and the problems many EU Citizens raised was the fact that their names appeared on the paper registers at polling stations but crossed through. Why was this?

The basic answer is that the election register combines six different categories of voters with differing entitlements to vote in different elections. All qualified voters who have registered and can vote in at least one set of elections appear are on the list but those ineligible to vote at the election in question at the polling station in question are crossed out.

More detail required? Sure.

Broadly there are three different franchises in this country:

The local & devolved government franchise for electing councils, police & crime commissioners and devolved parliaments & assemblies.
The Westminster franchise for electing the House of Commons.
The European Parliament franchise for electing members of the European Parliament.

(I'll come to referendums later in the post.)

Due to the different voting entitlements of ex pats, EU citizens and members of the House of Lords there are six different categories of voters with various combinations of franchise. For operational simplicity a single electoral roll is maintained but has to indicate the differing eligibility. If you see a register you will note that some voters' names have letters next to them; these indicate the different categories. These are as follows:

(No letter) - Citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Commonwealth countries (including Cyprus and Malta) who have all three franchise.
E - Ex pat members of the House of Lords who have the European Parliament franchise only.
F - Ex pats who moved abroad from the United Kingdom in the last fifteen years who have the Westminster and European Parliament franchises (in the constituency of their last registered address) but not the local government franchise.
G - Citizens of other European Union countries (excluding the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta covered above) who only have the local government franchise unless they've completed a further stage...
K - Citizens of other European Union countries (excluding the Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta covered above) who have completed, returned & had processed a formal declaration to state that they will be exercising their vote for the European Parliament in the United Kingdom and not in their country of citizenship, and thus have both the local government franchise and the European Parliament franchise.
L - Members of the House of Lords who have both the local government franchise and the European Parliament franchise but not the Westminster franchise for the House of Commons.

(The document for converting from "G" to "K" is called the UC1 form, although annoyingly not on the form itself, or the "European Union citizens – European Parliament voter registration form (GB)" in Great Britain and the EC6 form, a code that does appear on it, or the "EUROPEAN UNION CITIZENS - EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT VOTER REGISTRATION FORM (NI)" in Northern Ireland.)

There are also two letters relating to how votes cast:

A - Indicates a voter who has applied for a postal vote and thus cannot vote at the polling station.
P - Proxy - a vote has proxied their vote for someone else to cast it on their behalf.

To summarise by franchise:

Local & devolved government - (No letter), G, K, L
Westminster - (No letter), F
European Parliament - (No letter), E, F, K, L

Referendums usually use the same franchise as the relevant body in question though there have been some variations. Votes on various council matters or devolution use the local & devolved franchise. The AV and Brexit referendums used the Westminster franchise plus members of the House of Lords (E & L), with the latter also enfranchising voters in Gibraltar.

The standard election registers have all registered voters across the six categories listed. The copies for polling stations are printed so that all names appear but those unable to vote in a particular election are crossed out. As well as the categories of voters ineligible at the election, also crossed out are people with postal votes (A) and people on the register under the age of 18 on polling day.

This arrangement helps staff quickly identify the reason why a person will not be able to vote there, albeit at the expense of potentially confusing ineligible voters who may not understand why they can't vote when their name is on this list.

The problems relating to EU Citizens and the declaration forms to convert their category from G to K is such a big subject that it would take a separate post. However looking at some of the reported letters and phone calls, it seems that a lot of wording has not distinguished between someone appearing on the combined register for elections in general and having had the specifics processed for European Parliament elections.

An Election Freepost FAQ

2019-05-11T20:11:00.003+01:00

Updated 15/12/19: I've added another question that came up in the general election.

Updated 21/11/19: Information about elections to the European Parliament is no longer relevant. To keep it for historic purposes I've italicised the relevant text.

Over the past week or so a number of people have been posting on social media about leaflets from various political parties they've received, often with their name and address on them.

Officially called "Election Communications", these are election freepost leaflets. In some elections all candidates/parties are entitled to have one item delivered to all voters/households by Royal Mail. For many voters it may be the only thing they receive from a particular party/candidate.

Not everyone knows the ins and outs of them, so here's a quick set of Frequently Asked Questions and answers.

What elections have the freepost option?

Elections to the Westminster and European Parliaments.

For directly elected mayors the electoral authorities will directly send out a booklet containing multiple one or two page manifestos from all candidates who submitted them and paid the fee.

Local council elections and, if I recall correctly, police & crime commissioner elections don't have them. I forget what the provision is for the devolved parliaments.

Why have we only received leaflets from some parties?

The freepost is an option available to all parties and independent candidates, but not everyone makes use of it whilst some campaigners opt to only send out a limited amount to targeted voters and/or areas. For example in the 2011 AV referendum the Yes campaign (infamously) decided against doing a full delivery.

Why did this arrive after my postal vote?

It largely depends upon when the leaflets were delivered to Royal Mail. The final deadlines for submission are usually after the bulk of postal votes go out and the distribution is often staggered. Unaddressed freeposts (more on these below) are especially vulnerable to this but also some are sent in batches so the ones to postal voters arrive earlier; however not every party or candidate will have the most up to date postal vote list to hand.

How did [X] party get my address details?

Political parties and candidates are allowed access to the electoral register for election purposes, including sending literature to voters.

I am on the closed register so why am I receiving this?

The option to opt out of the "open" version of the register only applies to its commercial sale to marketing companies. Political parties and candidates have the full register.

I am a citizen of an EU country who cannot vote in general elections so why did I receive an addressed leaflet in a general election?

Citizens of EU member states (excluding the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus and Malta) resident in the UK can only vote in local & devolved and, if they complete the correct form and get it processed in time, EU Parliament elections. If they receive an addressed mailing the most likely reason is that a party has used the wrong franchise selection on their register database.

Why did only some of us in this home receive addressed leaflets?
and
Why did we get different leaflets?

Some parties and candidates will try to maximise the effect of the freepost by sending more than one leaflet to a home wherever possible. A common tactic is to send a first leaflet to the first named person on the register for an address and then a second leaflet to the second named person. Other parties may have limited resources and will only send one leaflet per household but address it to a named voter to navigate shared letterboxes and the like.

Why is this leaflet addressed to someone I've never heard of?

Either they're a past resident at your address who is still listed there on the electoral register (or on an outdated one used by a party) or there's been a major database screw-up, which has hit one party this year.

Why are some not addressed at all?

Some parties and candidates opt to send unaddressed leaflets to all households. Both addressed and unaddressed are options available with Royal Mail, though not all printers are set up for individual addressed leaflets.

Why did I receive this when I have a "No junk mail" sign up?

Political communications do not meet the official definition of junk mail.

Political parties have announced a suspension of campaigning so why was this delivered?

This came up a bit in the 2017 general election. Once the leaflets have been submitted and accepted by Royal Mail, they are out of control of the parties who are unable to then get delivery delayed. Royal Mail's internal set-up simply doesn't allow for such an instruction to go through and be implemented.

Why have I received a leaflet for a different constituency?

Annoyingly some leaflets seem to turn up in neighbouring constituencies despite everything being correctly filled out. In my experience these are usually unaddressed freeposts and the problem stems from postal areas not aligning to administrative boundaries, ranging from the post code to regional level.

Why does [X] have my details when they're not a political party, but a registered company?

All political parties listed on the ballot paper are officially registered with the Electoral Commission on the Register of Political Parties. Some parties may also be registered as companies for operational reasons (e.g. here's "The Liberal Democrats Limited"'s registration at Companies House) but if they're on the register of parties then they are a recognised political party, no matter how many times somebody tweets otherwise.

Independent candidates are also entitled to a copy of the register for electoral purposes.

Uncertain ballot papers in the Cotswolds

2019-05-04T18:00:00.000+01:00

One of the more interesting side shows in the local elections this week has been the result in the Tetbury Town ward on Cotswold District Council. The Conservative candidate retained the seat with a majority of just one vote over an independent and a lot of attention has focused upon one particular ballot paper that ultimately prevented the result from being a tie. (Details at Gloucestershire Live: Ballot paper with 'Brexit' and an arrow written across it accepted as deciding vote in controversial Cotswolds local election)

(The results for the district election, and indeed for just about every election in the area for the last five years can be found at Cotswold District Council - Election Results.)

There has been a lot of comment on the web and Twitter about this ballot paper and it's clear that many people are unaware of either the standard practice in election counts or the official guidance available. It is also clear that nobody has actually got a picture or scan of the ballot paper.

As someone who has lost count of the number of times I've been an election or counting agent, here's a quick rundown of how things work.

Most ballot papers have clear crosses in boxes for one or more candidates and the staff will separate them into separate piles. However some ballot papers aren't clear and if the counting staff are uncertain, or if a counting agent representing a candidate/party challenges a ballot paper's inclusion, then the ballot paper is set aside for adjudication.

The adjudication is carried out by the Returning Officer or by a deputy formally delegated the task. They have to formally determine whether or not the ballot paper shows a clear intention or if it is unclear or if the ballot paper must be rejected for other reasons.

The five categories of rejected votes are as follows:

Want of an official mark
This is an anti-counterfeiting measure. Today it's usually done by printing a special symbol on the ballot paper (with a different symbol for postal votes) but in the past special hole punches were used (and some disputed elections hinged on the failure of staff to properly punch the papers).

Voting for more Candidates than voter was entitled to
A straightforward category.

Writing or mark by which voter could be identified
This is to preserve the integrity of a secret ballot and aims to make it impossible for observers to definitely connect a vote to a voter. Writing your name, address or elector number will invalidate the vote.

Being unmarked or wholly void for uncertainty
This covers a wide range from completely blank ballot papers to those with just a message on them to those where the voter's choice can't be easily determined.

Rejected in part
This only comes up in multi-member elections. Sometimes some of the voter's choices are clear and others aren't and only the clear choices are admitted to the count.

The Returning Officer does not rule in a vacuum but instead draws upon the rules set down by legislation and previous court cases and summarised in official Electoral Commission guidance. There are several booklets for the various different elections, but the relevant one here is the excitingly named Dealing with doubtful ballot papers - Supporting local government elections in England and Wales (PDF). This contains examples and the relevant legislation or case references to guide. Occasionally more detailed guidance has to be consulted - the longest I've ever seen was when someone had neatly written "BNP" in a candidate's box. (The BNP was not standing in that election.) The ruling was that this was a valid vote and the candidate's face was a sight to behold. Never has a vote received been less wanted.

The rules and guidance aim heavily towards inclusion:

2.21 The key phrase in the Rules is: 'A ballot paper [...] shall not [...] be deemed to be void if an intention that the vote shall be for one or other of the candidates clearly appears.'
(Rule 47(3), Schedule 2, Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England & Wales) Rules 2006.) (Emphasis in the original.)

Specifically, a vote is still valid even if it is not placed in the box and even if it does not use a cross:

2.3 A ballot paper should not be rejected because the vote is:
• not marked in the proper place
• marked other than by a cross
• marked by more than one mark
(Rule 47(3), Schedule 2, Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England & Wales) Rules 2006)

The principles for determining the outcome are clearly set down:

2.22 Each ballot paper should be considered on its own merits and decisions should be taken on a case-by-case basis.
...
2.24 The key question a Returning Officer should ask is whether the voter has, on the face of the paper, indicated a reasonably clear intention to vote for a candidate or candidates.

Now the ballot paper in question reportedly had a statement written on it (reports vary as to whether it was "I'm voting for Brexit" or just "Brexit") and an arrow pointing to the Conservative candidate (a detail that is not present in all the reports).

A reporter at the count made some tweets, including pictures and videos, that clearly show there was long and detailed consideration on this ballot paper with the guidance consulted:

They’re still going through the book - a lot of page turning pic.twitter.com/VKrjehVYQJ
— Leigh Boobyer (@LeighBoobyer) May 3, 2019

As a result the ballot paper was ruled to show a clear selection of the Conservative candidate and thus a valid vote for him. Note that this was a ruling on a ballot paper and it was not a "tie breaker", despite how some of the reports have described it. Rulings on ballot papers are made in elections all the time, though the ballot papers involved rarely swing the outcome. Tie breakers only come when the number of votes after adjudication are exactly equal and a determination is made one way or another.

It cannot be denied that this is not the easiest of ballot papers to rule on. And once again it must be emphasised that everyone talking about this one online has not actually seen the paper in question. But from what has been reported it sounds like the Returning Officer ruled rightly that the ballot paper showed the voter selecting one of the candidates.

The Independent candidate has said he intends to bring an election petition to challenge the result. If he does then whatever the outcome it should at least provide a bit more case law to help future rulings and the booklet linked to here will need to be updated.

The collapse of Ukip - continued continued continued

2019-04-18T19:53:00.000+01:00

Four Kippers sitting on a bench,
Four Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one more Kipper changes their listing on a website,
There'll be three Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

The collapse of Ukip - continued continued

2019-04-15T15:43:00.002+01:00

Six Kippers sitting on a bench,
Six Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the party's attitude to women is "disgusting",
There'll be five Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Five Kippers sitting on a bench,
Five Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the leader is dividing communities and creating "a distasteful regime",
There'll be four Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

The collapse of Ukip - continued

2019-04-15T14:31:00.000+01:00

Seven Kippers sitting on a bench,
Seven Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper thinks the party has walked away from them and the original membership,
There'll be six Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

Merry Christmas!

2018-12-25T10:00:00.000+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!

The collapse of Ukip

2018-12-09T21:42:00.001+00:00

Twenty-four Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-four Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should decide it's more important to fight for Brexit and defect,
There'll be twenty-three Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-three Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-three Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should get expelled for "serious financial allegations",
There'll be twenty-two Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-two Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-two Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should punch another's lights out,
There'll be twenty-one Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty-one Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty-one Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find her relationship with the party "increasing difficult",
There'll be twenty Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twenty Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twenty Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should lose confidence in the latest leader and all the potential replacements,
There'll be nineteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Nineteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Nineteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should go and form his own local party,
There'll be eighteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eighteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eighteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find himself out of kilter with the party,
There'll be seventeen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Seventeen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Seventeen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should feel the party's been hijacked,
There'll be sixteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Sixteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Sixteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has become a "vehicle of hate",
There'll be fifteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Fifteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Fifteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should discretely change her listing on a website,
There'll be fourteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Fourteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Fourteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party's direction an impediment to securing Brexit,
There'll be thirteen Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Thirteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
Thirteen Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should point out the party wasn't founded to fight a religious crusade,
There'll be twelve Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Twelve Kippers sitting on a bench,
Twelve Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has left him,
There'll be eleven Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eleven Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eleven Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party promoting English nationalism,
There'll be ten Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Ten Kippers sitting on a bench,
Ten Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should rush off to be Flash Gordon, Saviour of the Universe,
There'll be nine Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Nine Kippers sitting on a bench,
Nine Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should find the party has lost its way,
There'll be eight Kippers left sitting on the bench.

Eight Kippers sitting on a bench,
Eight Kippers sitting on a bench,
And if one Kipper should be another to object to relations with the English Defence League founder,
There'll be seven Kippers left sitting on the bench.

TO BE CONTINUED...?

Doctor Who on 23rd November

2018-11-23T17:38:00.001+00:00

Doctor Who began on 23rd November 1963 and, with the odd break, has been going ever since in one form or another. But what episodes were first broadcast on this date? Here's a rundown.

1963: 100,000 BC: An Unearthly Child

Two teachers curious about a strange pupil whose registered address is a junk yard. They decide to investigate and discover a strange man and a police box full of surprises...

The very first episode of the very first story (which has multiple titles in use), this one naturally appears and amongst fans it's probably the single least criticised episode in the entire history of the series. It introduces the basics of the series though there's a lot of the mythology that is established later on.

1968: The Invasion Episode Four

The Doctor and Jamie, with help from the newly formed Unit (United Nations Intelligence Taskforce), rescue fellow companion Zoe from the mysterious electronics businessman Tobias Vaughan, then continue to investigate his affairs only to discover he has some familiar business partners...

This is the only episode on the list which sadly no longer exists today due to the reuse of videotape. This may be the show's fifth anniversary but there's nothing in the episode that acknowledges this. Instead the story is looking to the future, serving as a pilot for a new format for the series that would become the norm in the next few years. This is a Cybermen adventure (particularly famous for the later scene where their invasion force marches down the steps in front of St Paul's Cathefral), but as is often the case with them they barely appear in the story and are only first seen halfway through this eight-part adventure.

1983: The Five Doctors

A mysterious individual lifts multiple past Doctors and their companions out of time and deposits them in the Death Zone, a dark dimension where creatures have fight to survive and discover the secret of the tower at the centre of it.

This feature-length episode celebrated the twentieth anniversary of the series and although in the UK it wasn't broadcast until the 25th November, it first aired two days earlier in the United States. Many past elements are reused in the story, although critics might note that the 1983 season had already seen use of Time Lords, the Master and the Brigadier (and would have also featured the Daleks but for a strike), but it works as acknowledgement of where the series has come from.

1987: Dragonfire Part One

The Doctor and Mel come to Iceworld, an intergalactic Iceland, where amidst the frozen food they find their old friend Sabalom Glitz in trouble with the sinister Kane amidst stories of hidden treasure guarded by a firebreathing dragon.

At the time of transmission Dragonfire was billed as the 150th Doctor Who story, although this depends on exactly how some earlier stories are and aren't counted (other numbers range from 146 to 153), but despite this and the transmission date there's no acknowledgement of the anniversary (Glitz is just a link to the previous season, a common feature in a new Doctor's first year). Instead the show is again looking to the future and showing its experimental nature with this homage to cinema that draws on the likes of Aliens and Star Wars. It also introduces Ace, one of the best written companions in the series and the model for many in the modern era.

1988: Silver Nemesis Part One

A group of Hitler supporting paramilitaries hiding in South America and wanting to establish the Fourth Reich, a 17th century lady with black magic powers, a bunch of alien invaders and the Doctor & Ace all converge on Windsor in 1988 where a comet crashes into the Earth containing a statue of unimaginable power...

For the show's silver anniversary the story does its best with limited resources, thus making a silver statue, a comet that comes near Earth every 25 years and silver aliens all key plot elements. The first episode also has a bunch of cameos from past cast and crew and even an almost encounter with the Queen. It's a fast paced runaround that does its best but there's another story in the season that has a stronger anniversary feel.

2013: The Day of the Doctor

The Doctor's two most recent incarnations team up as their hidden past self struggles with the final day of the Time War between the Time Lords and the Daleks whilst Unit try to prevent a Zygon invasion of London...

The fiftieth anniversary of the series also serves as a conclusion to many plot points from the last eight years since the show's revival. As a result secrets are revealed, the years when the show was off air are addressed, there are returning old faces but there's also a clear statement for the future of the series. Elements have been building up for years and the result is a strong tribute to both the past and future of the show.

How to publicise railway works

2018-10-19T15:47:00.002+01:00

Once upon a time "Operation London Bridge" referred to, well, London Bridge station.

In the 1970s a major project was undertaken to rearrange the railway tracks not just at London Bridge itself but right across south east London to avoid conflict on the different routes to Charing Cross and Canon Street and at the same time to rebuild the railway station to better serve customers.

What's interesting from the modern perspective is the way in which passengers were taken with the project. There was a concerted publicity effort not only to make sure passengers were aware that there was going to be disruption, but also to explain the aim of the improvements and get them on board.

A collection of leaflets and posters can be seen at Southern Railway Publicity, specifically at Station Improvements. Some of the design and level of information may seem odd from a modern perspective but the key message is clear throughout - this was a project to untangle a major blockage in the system and improve reliability.

There was even a special film made by British Transport Films:

Note how often signs would include the words "Operation London Bridge", again making it clear to passengers that this was all part of the major project. This was especially useful at stations some way out from London Bridge itself.

All in all the publicity side can be considered a great success. Today's railway managers could do well to look back at this and remember that just stating "engineering works" does nothing for customer satisfaction.

(What of the changes themselves? Well they made the station more efficient for Charing Cross and Canon Street but note there have so far been no references to Blackfriars and beyond. This is because at the time there was no regular service to there from London Bridge. It wasn't until the late 1980s that the old Snow Hill tunnel was re-opened to passenger services, thus creating Thameslink and massively transforming the needs of London Bridge, with the added problem that the route to Blackfriars brought its own complications. Hence the more recent Thameslink Programme upgrade.

Operation London Bridge may have improved operations around London Bridge itself, but one consequence was a segregation of tracks right out across south east London which could affect the available services as network-wide efficiency took precedence over local through connections. One notable long term casualty has been the Bromley North branch, as explained in detail at London Reconnections: The Past and Future of the Bromley North Branch.)

The problem of rewriting the dictionary - Labour and antisemitism

2018-07-19T12:45:00.000+01:00

As an outsider looking in, Labour's repeated problems with antisemitism seem almost surreal. How is it that the party has got itself into this mess? Why is it so reluctant to accept the standard definition of antisemitism? Why is there so much resistance to allowing Jews to determine when they've been discriminated against? Why is a Jewish MP being disciplined for calling out antisemitism in the party?

At first I couldn't understand it. But then the more I thought about it, the more an answer suggested itself. A lot in the Labour Party and on the left more broadly have got themselves into a complete mess because they've gone down a route of limiting the definition of terms such as "racism" and "sexism", to the point that they've predetermined who can and can't experience them, creating problems when this definition conflicts with reality.

I first noticed this many years ago in student politics (where I encountered a number of people who are now Labour MPs - or ex ones - across all sections of the party). It was particularly noticeable that a good number of people in and around the "Liberation Campaigns" (Women's, Black, LGBT, Disabled Students) of the National Union of Students had a pretty firm notion of sexism and/or racism that rejected the idea some people could experience them - "men don't suffer sexism" or "white people don't experience racism". (The use of the terms "homophobia" and "ableism" instead of "sexualityism" and "abilityism" somewhat diminished the issue there.) Instead everything was viewed through the prism of liberation theory, regarding these terms as meaning societal structural oppression and a clear hierarchy of oppressor and oppressed (with detailed tiers for those who experience multiple repression). Aligned to this is the view that only those experiencing repression could say that that is what it is.

But this approach has the effect of a siege mentality with some pretty rigid views on who is contained within the siege. And it also leads to confusion, argument and alienation as genuine concerns about discrimination in the reverse to standard form get brushed aside and potential allies alienated. It also isn't very good at coping with the idea a group of people can be both oppressors and oppressed depending on the context.

To cut to the chase, the Israel/Palestine situation is a complex matter of the kind that doesn't lend itself to easy solutions by shouting slogans. So naturally it attracts those for whom protesting and shouting is the solution to a problem. And whilst Jewish people may be the majority in Israel, they are a minority elsewhere, thus in both positions. Plus a lot of antisemitic rhetoric accuses Jews of having too much power - attacks on bankers, "Jewish world conspiracy" and so on.

Consequently a significant part of the left has wound up defining "racism", and thus "antisemitism" in such a way that just cannot understand a lot of the antisemitic rhetoric flying around. Its whole outlook does not allow Jews to define antisemitism, especially in regards to rhetoric around Israel, because that completely undermines a world view in which everyone is either an oppressor or an oppressed and they've already allocated the former category.

If the left is to overcome its problems here, it has to move beyond such rigid liberation theory and accept a more broader definition of discrimination, racism, sexism and so forth. Otherwise it will continue to cause pain and hurt whilst not actually solving things.

Which US Presidents were denied renomination?

2018-03-19T10:00:00.000+00:00

It's looking like Donald Trump will be challenged for the Republican nomination in 2020. (Washington Post: Curtain rises in New Hampshire with president's appearance) Invariably some want to know how many previous presidents have failed to be renominated by their party.

As with many historical questions about US presidential selections this is not simple to answer. Not only has the nomination process changed over the years but also there was historically a lot of smoke and mirrors. In the 19th century there was a widespread belief that one shouldn't seek the presidency but rather be drafted to it. This wasn't quite how some of the candidates approached things behind the scenes but it meant that they didn't always leave the biggest public clues. Sitting presidents were often most subject to this, presenting an image of standing again by popular demand, often only formally declaring their intentions just before a convention vote or even not until an acceptance message.

There was also a belief that presidents shouldn't serve more than two terms, but this doesn't seem to have been adhered to by that many. Between 1837 and 1952 just about every president who completed two terms seems to have considered another, either consecutively or a subsequent comeback. But how far these bids went isn't always clear.

How parties pick their candidates has also evolved. Initially candidates were selected by the Congressional (parliamentary) parties. This system broke down around the 1820s and by the 1840s all the significant parties had adopted the model of a national convention voting on prospective candidates. Delegate selection was initially by state party leaders though in the early 20th century a populist revolt introduced various forms of direct voter involvement through primaries and caucuses in some states. However political leaders managed to nullify some of the effects by limiting the number of delegates selected and/or by running local figures as "favourite sons" in the primaries, with the prospective candidates often not formally announcing until later and treating the primaries as a means of testing the water rather than a formal contest. This system broke down in 1968 with the mess of the Democrat nomination that year, leading to an opening up of the primaries and it is now extremely rare for the convention itself to have any role in selecting the nominee beyond stamping the primary winner.

With all these caveats, here are the various presidents that one way or another wanted renomination but did not obtain it:

John Tyler. Elected Vice President on the Whig ticket in 1840, Tyler was the first to succeed in office. He rapidly proved a disappointment to Whig leaders, vetoing much of their plans. Effectively expelled from the party in late 1841, he governed pretty much as an independent and thus was never under consideration for the Whig nomination in 1844. He instead formed a briefly lived "Democratic-Republican Party" (reusing the name of Thomas Jefferson's old party) which nominated him for the presidency though his efforts were more focused on getting the Democrats to adopt a policy of annexing Texas rather than on re-election. When the Democrats nominated Polk and delivered the assurances Tyler dropped out of the race.

Millard Fillmore. Elected Vice President on the Whig ticket in 1848, Fillmore succeeded in office in 1850 and used the influence of the White House to secure the Compromise of 1850 to settle issues between the free and slave states. However this left the Whigs bitterly divided. At the 1852 convention Fillmore was proposed but lost in the succession of ballots to Winfield Scott. Later in 1856 Fillmore would run as the nominee of both the Know Nothing Party and what remained of the Whigs.

Franklin Pierce. Elected President in 1852, Pierce is the clearest case on this list. Proposed for the nomination at the 1856 Democrat convention he lost in the balloting.

Andrew Johnson. Elected Vice President on the "National Union" ticket in 1864, which combined Republicans with War Democrats, Johnson succeeded as President the following year. A Democrat by background, Johnson fell out with the Republican leaders in Congress and the National Union umbrella dropped away. In 1868 Johnson was proposed for the Democrat nomination but did not have enough support in the ballots at a lengthy convention.

Ulysses S. Grant. Elected President in 1868 and 1872, Grant contemplated a third term but in 1875 the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution in favour of the two-term limit. Facing such political opposition he dropped his hopes for 1876, but later in 1880 he sought another term but did not succeed at the longest ever Republican convention.

Chester Arthur. Elected Vice President in 1880, he succeeded in office the following year. He contemplated running for a full term in his own right in 1884, but suffering from illness and with the Republican factions lining up behind other candidates he ultimately declined to make a serious effort but did not formally drop out of the running as he felt it would raise too many questions about his administration and health.

Grover Cleveland. Now this is the one that is probably the most unclear. Elected President in 1884 and defeated in 1888, in 1892 he became the only former President to return to the office. In the run-up to the 1896 election he did not make his intentions clear one way or the other and so was a possible contender going into the Democrat convention. However the policy debate at the start of the convention repudiated Cleveland's administration on the central economic question of the day (gold s silver) and so any attempt to secure the nomination for Cleveland would have been a waste of time. He was not proposed at the convention, with his home state delegation of New York abstaining on the initial ballot along with New Jersey. A group of "Gold Democrats" did make try to make a third party nomination of Cleveland but he refused it. Later in 1904 the pro gold Democrats recaptured control of the party but Cleveland turned down requests to stand again.

Woodrow Wilson. Elected President in 1912 and 1916, he suffered a stroke in late 1919 that limited his attempts to get the US to ratify the Treaty of Versailles and join the League of Nations. Despite this he held out hopes of being renominated in 1920 but this seems to have been the delusions of an isolated man surrounded by people who wouldn't point out the realities to him. He had further hopes of a comeback in 1924 but died at the start of the year.

Harry Truman. Elected Vice President in 1944, he succeeded in office the following year and won a full term in 1948, he was given an exemption from the formalisation of the two term limit in the Twenty-Second Amendment. By the time of the New Hampshire primary he had not yet found an anointed successor or announced if he would restand, but assented to his name being put on the ballot paper. Defeat in the primary led to his announcing he would not be seeking a further term.

Lyndon Johnson. Elected Vice President in 1960, he succeeded in office in 1963 and won a full term the following year. Under the terms of the Twenty-Second Amendment he was eligible to be elected again in 1968. Like Truman he assented to his name going forward to early primaries but announced he would not seek the nomination after adverse results.

As can be seen from this list, other than Millard Fillmore and Franklin Pierce it's not easy to say for sure which sitting presidents actively sought renomination but were denied it. Several abandoned plans before formal votes, others treated the primaries as testing the water rather a formal campaign, some had delusions of their essentialness more than anything else, others had already broken with their party, one was making only a token effort. Exactly what does and doesn't count (and even Fillmore's inclusion is arguable given that he was a Vice President who succeeded) makes this list one to debate endlessly over.

The debacle of the Democrats' 1968 nomination has led to the process being opened up with a much more public process and so it's no longer possible for someone to be as ambiguous as Truman or Johnson were about whether they were seeking nomination (in 1964 Johnson only formally decided close to the convention, after the handful of primaries were won either by him or by loyal "favourite sons" collecting delegates). Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter and the elder George Bush all faced serious challenges in the primaries. All defeated them but went on to lose their re-election bids and these are the only sitting presidents defeated in the general election in nearly ninety years.

However before anyone rushes to plan a party for Trump's defeat, bear in mind that he has already broken a lot political wisdom so a serious challenge in the primaries may not spell doom for his hopes.

Can an established party truly vanish?

2018-02-17T10:00:00.000+00:00

Today Ukip are holding an extraordinary general meeting to decide whether or not to remove their leader Henry Bolton from office. It comes at a time when Ukip is struggling on all fronts, with defections, election set backs, funders deserting, infighting and more, leading to many to wonder whether the party will soon disappear.

But just how easy is it for a party to truly vanish? Many parties have a brief period in the spotlight and manage to linger on for years afterwards, despite major losses. For example many would think Veritas was just a flash in the pan vehicle of Robert Kilroy-Silk for his actions back in 2005. In fact Veritas existed for another decade before merging into the English Democrats (and no, I don't know what happened to Veritas in the rest of the UK, if there was anything by then). It shows how for as long as there are still people around maintaining the registration, a party can just keep on going.

But what of the more significant parties that have actually won seats in elections? Well since 1997 the following parties have won seats at at least one out of Westminster, Stormont, Cardiff Bay, Holyrood or Brussels but since dissolved:

Northern Ireland Women's Coalition
UK Unionist Party - founded by Robert McCartney
Blaenau Gwent People's Voice (okay its Westminster and Cardiff Bay candidates stood as independents but they were backed by BGPV) - founded by Peter Law
Respect - founded by George Galloway
John Marek Independent Party, later renamed Forward Wales - founded by John Marek
Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party - founded by John Swinburne

Spot a common theme? With one exception, each of these parties was largely built around a single figure, in four cases a past or present parliamentarian/assembly member. Blaenau Gwent People's Voice did outlive Peter Law for several years but ultimately these were personalist vehicles that hinged on a single figure. When that figure either died or was defeated or sought to join a bigger party, their vehicle soon gave up.

The exception in the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition, although even then the party was heavily identified with co-founder Monica McWilliams. However it did manage to develop beyond the one member personalist vehicle that others usually began as, but ultimately folded.

Now Ukip may have been heavily dominated by Nigel Farage, but it was created before him, has had many other representatives over the years and has a clear brand. In normal circumstances there is absolutely reason why it wouldn't continue to exist and contest elections with just a handful of people still going. Around the world this isn't unusual - for instance in the United States the Prohibition Party is still going (and still receiving money from a trust fund established during its heyday) long after its banner issue has ceased to be of any relevance. So expecting a party to disappear altogether may be premature and Ukip do still have some significant broadcast entitlements (helped by the media using a formula that's based on two election cycles) that will keep the group in the public eye.

However there is a major threat to its existence and it has little to do with Henry Bolton (although how the leader handles it may be a factor in how members decide today). The party has been found liable for some of the costs in a libel case (see BBC News: Jane Collins defamation case: UKIP delayed case for more details) and may prove financially unviable. If the party cannot pay then it could be forcibly liquidated. The case could shed light on exactly what and who constitute a political party and are thus liable for its debts. The party's intellectual property and registration might well become assets seized and auctioned off. Could someone buy up "Ukip" to carry on or will the case destroy the party for good?

Merry Christmas!

2017-12-25T10:00:00.000+00:00

Merry Christmas everyone!