For those of you who missed the comment by Stuart Dickson on my EU post yesterday, I will copy it here.
Interesting motion on the Commons order paper for the end of business tonight (last night*):
RULE 56 (1) OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION RULES
[No debate]
Secretary Jim Murphy
That, in accordance with rule 56 (1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, the sealed packets containing the completed corresponding number lists forwarded to the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy following the Glenrothes by-election on 6 November 2008 (1) shall not be destroyed by the sheriff clerk other than as provided for in the protocol agreed among the Secretary of State for Scotland, the electoral registration officer for Fife, the returning officer for the Glenrothes parliamentary constituency and the sheriff clerk for the Kirkcaldy sheriff court district and dated 16 and 19 October 2009 (Cm 7729); (2) may be delivered by that sheriff clerk to that returning officer; and (3) may be opened by that returning officer in order that a substitute marked copy of the register of electors may be made available for public inspection, all in accordance with and subject to the conditions specified in that protocol.
To be decided without debate (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order of 20 October).
RULE 56 (1) OF THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION RULES
[No debate]
Secretary Jim Murphy
That, in accordance with rule 56 (1) of the Parliamentary Election Rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, the sealed packets containing the completed corresponding number lists forwarded to the sheriff clerk at Kirkcaldy following the Glenrothes by-election on 6 November 2008 (1) shall not be destroyed by the sheriff clerk other than as provided for in the protocol agreed among the Secretary of State for Scotland, the electoral registration officer for Fife, the returning officer for the Glenrothes parliamentary constituency and the sheriff clerk for the Kirkcaldy sheriff court district and dated 16 and 19 October 2009 (Cm 7729); (2) may be delivered by that sheriff clerk to that returning officer; and (3) may be opened by that returning officer in order that a substitute marked copy of the register of electors may be made available for public inspection, all in accordance with and subject to the conditions specified in that protocol.
To be decided without debate (Standing Order No. 118(6) and Order of 20 October).
* my insert
Posts
10 comments:
Ah. No debate. Good. Nothing can come out if there is no debate.
"may be opened by that returning officer in order that a substitute marked copy of the register of electors may be made available for public inspection, all in accordance with and subject to the conditions specified in that protocol."
I wonder how much we have had to pay in cash and democracy to get to this "it is in the rules" moment? As for an Opposition, Lord help us.
And the Afganistan election was supposed to be dodgey? Glenrothes still seems to have unanswered Questions?
D.
I think I'm missing the joke. Are they suggesting that the already-destroyed material should not be destroyed..? (Please explain.)
That's it Tris, no opposition if no debate.
Indeed OR, indeed.
Plenty unanswered ones Apogee, but will we receive answers? No.
Mek, I'm no expert as you know. As I understand it the lists which correspond with the registers can now be opened and used to produce a duplicate marked copy of the register.
I thought the lists and the registers were altogether and picked up by a binman who innocently dumped them in some landfill somewhere.
The Scottish government aren't to be involved either I note.
I guess, as elecotral affairs are a reserved matter, the Scottish government cannot be involved, no matter how fraudulent they MIGHT think the process.
I'm suprised that the SNP in London hasn't made more of this.
That they ahve not MAY indicate that they do not think that it is fraud...
My emphasis above is because I have no idea what they think about it.
Like Mek, I'd like it explained in plain language Tris. It's all too much 'according to protocol' but I've no idea what protocol.
Post a Comment