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.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Call for Southwell's importance to Byron to be recognised
John Stoa Original Art exhibition #dundeewestend
The Muesli Assassins
Katharine Pindar
David Raw
David Allen
Anthony Acton
15 Comments
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?
But doesn’t the web give candidates a low/no cost way to introduce themselves to the constituency, starting as early as they like?
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.
Simon – but most people won’t go online to find out about their local candidates unless they aware they exist in the first place or even if they’re aware there is an election pending. It’s why I don’t see the internet ever replacing leaflets. Leaflets are far more in your face than the internet and that’s one reason why they work.
First Simon: yes.
Second Simon: the problem is that with by-elections, people often don’t have the opportunity to get themselves known in advance because the by-election is unexpected. With a general election there is more warning and so candidates selected further in advance in more seats.
I find myself more in agreement with Dave here – I think the writ should always be moved as soon as decently possible in order to restore representation to the constituency. If anything, 26 days seems too long to me in all but the most exceptional cases (e.g. where the incumbent has died in suspicious circumstances that are still being investigated, which I hope is a rare occurrence.)
Are these figures mean or median?
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
I’m not sure vacancies are that big a problem. If “representation” is really such a big deal then the real issue is having about a quarter of Parliament on the government payroll. The implication is that old chestnut, the continual drift from MP-as-legislator to MP-as-supersocialworker. Those of us who consider the latter to be lamentable will have less of a problem with long periods of vacancy.
That said, I’m not convinced that by-elections are a particularly good idea either. Great news for people who have an interest in filling the newspapers with column inches about process but they don’t really have much to do with democracy or good governance. There are lots of ways we could avoid them – by allowing parties to nominate a replacement or – in the case of PR elections – simply recounting the votes (STV) or going to the next person on the list. If local people really want by-elections, we could always have a petitioning system to call one within a set period.
Hywel: replace “James” with “KL”
James: the figures are means. I re-checked through my raw data after calculating the means and it’s not a case of a small number of outliers massively distorting the figures. (It is though why I excluded Northern Ireland, because that did have the one-off exception of a huge round of by-elections on the same day.)
Surprised you say that you’d be happy under first past the post with parties just nominating someone to take over. In the case of Cheadle, for example, that would mean someone getting to be an MP for near on 5 years – plus all the incumbency benefits to help them to stay MP for even longer – without any public say?
Mark: I don’t especially feel strongly either way, and I did say a by-election should happen if enough constituents petition for one. Perhaps an automatic by-election would be appropriate within two years of a general election, but after that? Not convinced.
1992-1997 running long was just as much a case of partisan advantage, though. The Tories had realised, at least after Christchurch, that they were never going to win a by-election. It’s worth remembering that in 1993-4-5 they were even more unpopular than in 1997.
With a small majority, every time a Tory MP died, they lost one from their majority; every time the by-election was held, they lost another one. As a result, it was an advantage for them to deliberately delay the by-election as they kept their majority higher and put off the day when they finally became a minority government.
I would prefer a fixed timetable of about three months from the vacancy appearing. I appreciate James’ point about the probable lack of necessity of by-elections; I don’t accept that for FPTP, but there is something to it in PR systems. If candidates had to designate their substitute at the time of the original election (like a President designated a VP in the US) then there would be a much better democratic justification.