Parliamentary by-elections get four weeks shorter – and why it matters

The average length of Parliamentary by-election campaign has shrunk by four weeks since the 1970s, sharply narrowing the chance for the public to find out about the candidates presented to them and stifling openness in the candidate selection processes which frequently now have to be run at break-neck pace.

The legal timetable for a Parliamentary by-election between moving of writ and polling day has some scope for variation, but essentially is three weeks. However, there is no fixed time between a seat falling vacant, e.g. due to an MP dying or stepping down, and the writ being moved.

In the 1974-79 Parliament, on average there were 54 days between the vacancy and the writ being moved in by-elections in Great Britain. The 1992-97 Parliament had a series of unusually long gaps between vacancy and writ, driving its average up to 57 days. Since 1997 the figures have consistently been under 30 days. In the current Parliament that has fallen to just 26 days.*

Taking into account the rest of the timetable, this means the length of Parliament by-election campaigns has fallen by approximately 40% since the 1970s or the 1990s peak. If you are familiar with the intense pace of developments and shifts of public opinion during by-elections, you’ll know just what a big difference four weeks makes to a  campaign.

In reality, by-election campaigns for many voters have fallen even further because of the sharp increase in postal voting, which results in people voting before polling day.

Had a legislative change been proposed that would have brought about a similar cut in the length of Parliamentary by-elections, it would have been hugely controversial because shorter campaigns mean less time for candidates to put their cases and less chance for the public to hear from candidates. It also makes it harder for new people to break in as plausible candidates.

At a time when nominally all parts of the electoral system are deeply concerned with increasing public interest and involvement in our elections, slashing the length of election campaigns runs in completely the opposite direction.

I understand the situation of those who decide to move the writ increasingly quickly, whichever party they are from. They are working fully within the law and, given the law gives them discretion to choose when to move the writ, choosing the date that best suits your own party is understandable. I’ve given advice on this basis myself in the past, particularly for local by-elections.

But there comes a point where everyone should take a step back and ask whether it’s right that the rules are written this way. Parliamentary by-elections are now in practice far too short to offer much meaningful choice between individuals. If you think politics should just be about choosing between parties, then that doesn’t matter. But if you think the individual merits of candidates matter, then the huge cut in the length of Parliamentary by-elections is a real problem.

* Average number of days between date of vacancy and issue of writ: 1947-79 54 days, 1979-83 47 days, 1983-87 37 days, 1987-92 45 days, 1992-1997 57 days, 1997-2001 29 days, 2001-05 26 days, 2005-present 26 days. Source: calculated from data from the House of Commons Library.

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Election law and Parliamentary by-elections.


  • On the other hand, the longer a constituency is without representation in Parliament, the more disenfranchised the residents of that constituency; as a party we rightly condemned the situation in Glasgow North-East where the seat was vacant for a very long period of time. Let’s not forget that it’s a balancing act!

  • Would there not be some sense in bringing Parliamentary by-elections in line with local ones and havign a 25 to 35 days from the writ being moved in which the campaign has to take place?

  • Dave I think you are being very generous with your description of balancing ACT more like cold political calculation by Labour. Norwich North where they were going to lose was called on a short time table Glasgow North East went long.

  • I tend to think that a short period for a by-election is actually better – to me, the period between Michael Martin’s resignation and Willie Bain’s election was simply too long and unacceptable. There should be some sort of rule where the election must take place within, say, eight weeks of the seat becoming vacant (whilst taking into account Liz W’s point.)

    Of course, if parties think that someone is delaying unnecessarily, they could move the writ themselves – it’s only convention that dictates it’s the party which holds the seat moves the writ.

  • From a narrow self-interest point of view we tend to do better in campaigns with a long lead in when we can get established. EG we probably wouldn’t have won Ribble Valley or Brent East on a short 4-6 week campaign.

    The problem with James point about opposition parties moving the writ is that the Government can vote them down. IIRC this happened with Glasgow NE

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Andrew Tampion
    Peter Watson: "but the impression was left that the nett figure was still a big one with little explanation of the good things it bought us." That is because t...
  • Simon R
    @Nigel I don't see it as at all irrelevant if a person maintains a right to vote in another country. One person one vote is a fundamental principle of our democ...
  • Lee Thacker
    "Only the Scottish Liberal Democrats can beat the nationalists in huge swathes of Scotland." That is clearly not true....
  • Peter Watson
    @Chris Moore "the 350 MILLION figure was an effective piece of propaganda, but false." A failure to properly address this was one of the many disappointing asp...
  • Peter Watson
    @Peter Martin "the opinion polls were predicting a Remain win. It didn’t seem to add up at the time and so it proved." My hunch was that shy Brexiters were o...