Talk:2011 Belfast West by-election

Misuse of primary sources and misleading sentence

Why were this, this and this being used to construct the original research of "Notwithstanding Gerry Adams' public statement rejecting his new position, the Parliamentary authorities in Westminster have removed him from the list of MPs and the seat of Belfast West is now considered vacant." Gerry Adams public position is outlined in the first source linked to, specifically "A chara, I hereby resign as MP for the constituency of west Belfast. Go raibh maith agat. Gerry Adams". That has been his consistent public position, that he had resigned as an MP. Therefore to try and construct a misleading sentence using primary sources that implies Gerry Adams still considers himself the MP is wholly inappropriate, especially as it concerns a living person. There was zero information in the sentence that was not already conveyed by the rest of the article anyway. O Fenian (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Further to the comments here, I would not object to a simple sentence being added back along the lines of "The seat is currently vacant" or words to that effect, and would not make a 1RR report should Doktorbuk wish to add something like that. It is the "Notwithstanding Gerry Adams' public statement rejecting his new position" part I object to, since his public position has always been that he had resigned and the seat was vacant. O Fenian (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may add in on this, I fail to see how the 1RR thing applies here. The 1RR community restrictions were set up for articles associated with The Troubles of which this doesn't really apart from the ex-MP being a major figure in it in the past. This is about an election to a British parliamentary contituency this year with nothing to do with the troubles so it shouldn't be subject to the restrictions. If you do apply it to this, you should then apply it to every article that mentions Gerry Adams. Back to the election, in UK law, he has been appointed to an Office under the Crown (whether he likes it or not) and it disqualified him from Parliament in lieu of resigning so it should be mentioned that he doesn't want to be known as The Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead (although that is what he is, pretty ironic that he now serves the Crown he claims to dislike!) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling the by-election

In recent days we have seen changes expressing different views:

1) the government will definitely issue the writ for the by-election; 2) any party in Parliament can issue the writ for the by-election but it is expected to be the government.

I believe that 2) is true but the difficulty I have with what is in the article is that we are quoting a local paper to establish a claim regarding parliamentary procedure. I'm not saying that it's not a reliable source, but can we not quote something which has a more reliable stance on parliamentary procedure? Crooked cottage (talk) 13:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. The writ can be issued by any MP and the paper quoted seems to be wrong. The UK Parliamentary by-elections article gives examples of the writ being moved by various different MPs, with multiple citations given. In previous cases, writs for by-elections for abstentionist Republican MPs have been moved by UUP and Plaid Cymru MPs. However, I don't see a citation neatly summarising the point. Bondegezou (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the parties moving the writ if they have a chance to gain the seat for themselves however since this constituency was one of the safest constituencies in the UK I can't see any of the parties moving a writ to basically hand the consituency back to a party that gives it's constituents no representation so I doubt it will happen anytime soon. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It is not true that the "writ can be issued" by any member. Any member can move that the Speaker issue his warrant, but the House must adopt the motion, and I think there's even a slight complication to that (I seem to remember something odd happening when a Tory or Lib Dem tried to move a writ for the Michael Martin by-election in the last Parliament). To C of E's point, regardless of its being a safe seat for a party that doesn't bother turning up, they probably still have a moral responsibility to give the electors of Belfast West an opportunity to return someone. If nothing else, abstentionists are still able to do constituency work, and not calling a by-election at all would deprive constituents of the person to do that work. Anyway, let's see if they move the writ on a schedule to double it up with the Assembly elections. Finally, as to the quality of the source, I've heard it on Today in Parliament or something like that and I read it in a better source, but the former is impossible to search, and I can't find the latter in a Google news search. It was in †he Guardian or the Independent, or in a BBC News story, but, as I say, I can't track it down. Sorry about that. -Rrius (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine the kind of constituency work they do. I can imagine the new sf MP at one of the constituency clinics saying, "Tell me your problems so that I may not bring them up in parliament to represent you or do anything about them. Now I must claim some expenses for work I didn't do". Back to the point though: I don't know if they will move the writ as frankly if you don't show up, no-one knows you're there and no-one will notice if you have gone (a bit philosophical for a political article). I think though that the only party that have a realistic chance of bringing it up is the SDLP or maybe Labour if sf do what they said they might do and stand aside in it and support Galloway then the writ might be done then. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said above, in previous cases, writs for by-elections for abstentionist Republican MPs have been moved by UUP and Plaid Cymru MPs. However, here is not the place for speculation on the issue. Let's see if we can find some better reliable sources! Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well said. I'll have a look around this weekend. Crooked cottage (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Constituency boundaries

"A constituency of the same name, with boundaries identical to the Westminster constituency which existed before the 2010 election, was contested at the Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2007, using the single transferable vote method of election. "

This isn't strictly true as the constituency was amended by the by-election and these boundaries were used for the first time in 2010. I changed "identical" to "similar" but I'm still not sure I like it. Conquistador17 (talk) 10:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have misread the sentence. It is referring to the boundaries prior to the 2010 election and an election in 2007, therefore "identical" is correct as far as I am aware. O Fenian (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Point taken Conquistador17 (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting wording change

Yesterday the Leicester South writ was moved. The text of the resolution is in the Votes and Proceedings. Now there is something interesting in the wording - compare with Glasgow North East:

Ordered, That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Burgh Constituency of Glasgow North East in the room of the Right honourable Michael John Martin, who since his election to the said Burgh Constituency has accepted the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead, in the county of York.

Now we have:

Ordered, That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Leicester South in the room of Sir Peter Alfred Soulsby, who since his election to the said Borough Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward and Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead.

My emphasis. The Barnsley Central writ in February also used the "has been appointed" wording - significantly that was after the fuss about whether Gerry Adams accepted the office. In the circumstances it seems clear that the Speaker has performed a bit of deft footwork to change the wording of the motion to issue a writ, and has cannily arranged that it is used and accepted on two previous undisputed cases before it gets used in the case of Gerry Adams. Sam Blacketer (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it seems that because Soulsby's predecessor as Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead kicked up such a fuss about reciving the position. That may have created a new precident to say that MPs can no longer accept the appointment, they just have to take it and be disqualified from the Commons. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. The relevant act is quite clear that "No person being a member of the House of Commons... shall be required to accept any office or place by virtue of which he would be disqualified..." It appears entirely at odds with the spirit of this if the claim is that they are disqualified regardless of whether they choose to accept the office. Warofdreams talk 11:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

One day a court may need to rule on the whole matter but for now Adams is making no fuss. As a minister said in the Commons, Adams has been taken to his desired destination if not quite the way he'd have preferred to get there. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The point about 'accepting the office' is actually more complex and techical. It derives from the little-known fact that what normally disqualifies a Member is agreeing to be appointed to an office of profit under the crown, rather than the formal appointment. Normally the second event occurs very swiftly after the first, but not always. For a demonstration of how there can sometimes be a disconnection, take the case of Sir George McCrae, MP for Edinburgh East, in 1909. On 3 April The Times reported that McCrae was likely to be appointed Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Scotland, which would vacate his seat. By Monday 5 April he was reported to have been appointed. On Wednesday 7 April, the writ was moved "in the room of Sir George McCrae, who has accepted the office of Vice-President of the Local Government Board of Scotland". The by-election to replace him happened on 16 April. Then the warrant formally appointing Sir George McCrae was issued on 1 May 1909, four weeks after his seat had been vacated.

There doesn't seem to have been a previous case where someone was appointed to a disqualifying office without, in terms, accepting the appointment - which no doubt explains the concern to put the situation clear. The British constitution has this way of fuzzing away unprecedented and difficult situations. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The wonders of not having a constitution written down! The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Article Title

We should not be using 2011 in this article title until we know the date of the by-election. --Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. It would be highly unsual (without precedent, indeed), for a by-election not to take place within the same year as the resignation. doktorb _words^deeds 07:59, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

But then you have to bear in mind that this is regarding a person whos been appointed to the Crown Stewardship of the Manor of Northstead and represents a party who choose not to take their seats so theres no-one from his party to move the writ for the by-election. I know it was discussed above that another party could do it but somehow I don't think it will be anytime soon which would support removing 2011 but then again, Belfast West by-election is a bit vague as a title. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"Belfast West by-election" isn't a good title, given the three other by-elections held in the seat. Precedent suggests that the by-election is almost certain to be this year, so I oppose changing the title. The only other possible title would be something along the lines of "upcoming Belfast West by-election", which is clunky. Warofdreams talk 08:49, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue surrounding the writ is just a convention and anyone from any party can move the writ, the same party moving the writ is only what "usually" happens and not what has to happen. The Oldham-East and Saddleworth by-election writ was moved by the Liberal Democrats and the seat was formerly a Labour held seat and the moving of the writ was within the rules for moving the writ. Anyone can move the writ; Sylvia Hermon, Caroline Lucas, or even Nick Clegg could move the writ. It doesn’t have to be Martin McGuinness or Michelle Gildernew or another Sinn Fein MP, anyone MP can do it. Also as for the Office for profit they are holding it is not a bar to the by-election being called take Eric Ilsley or Tony Blair or Boris Johnson. They all took offices for profit and their seats were all successfully by-elected.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I know, but surely in certain politician's minds that if they do move the writ they are basically handing the constituency back to party that give their constituents no representation as Belfast West is one of the safest seats in the British parliamentary system which somehow I don't think they'll want to. But I'm sure you're right and that someone will eventually do it. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 05:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Stating there is no representation is pure nonsense. Sinn Fein have Westminster offices and can claim expenses. The only thing Sinn Fein refuse to do is take the oath of office. This for two reasons they are Catholic and Republicans. The Oath requires swearing allegiance to the monarchy of the United Kingdom which they view as the head of an occupying force. The Queen is also the head of the Church of England and they refuse to swear allegiance to the head of a religion different to their own. So they do represent their constituents they just simply do not vote or speak in debates etc etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought Republicans were not the same as Catholics (mask slips) while their constituents include Protestants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.153.28.207 (talk) 23:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's not get diverted here. Whatever Sinn Féin do or don't do is for other venues than Wiki. The current discussion about this article title seems to have been tidied up pretty quickly - if the title is anything, it's a better alternative than any others even under the circumstances doktorb _words^deeds 17:26, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I would expect that the reason no by-election is planned at present is due to the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 5 May. Once those are out of the way, I am sure some progress will be made on the by-election. O Fenian (talk) 22:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Since none of us know when the by-election will be called, we have to acknowledge that a long period could apply. I have copied a table over from another Wiki page outlining long dates.--Gavin Lisburn (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it as pointless. The list was not even about the time between a seat becoming vacant and a by-election, but simply the number of days between by-elections. O Fenian (talk) 20:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belfast West by-election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721205323/http://www.eoni.org.uk/notice_of_election_-_parliamentary_by-election_9_june_2011.pdf to http://www.eoni.org.uk/notice_of_election_-_parliamentary_by-election_9_june_2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)