Did you know...

[Somewhatfoolish]

The Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) (Amendment) Order 2005 prohibits the use of the expression ‘None of the above’ as part of a party name?

I'm trying really hard not to be conspiracy minded about this...

[Asterix]

Hahahaha - love it.

Wonder who tried the ruse in the first place.

[Somewhatfoolish]

I was going to. Now I'm thinking of 'vote for us if you hate politicians' or something like that.

[randomman]

How about the
"I'm not voting for any of these feckers" party?

[Somewhatfoolish]

Well I've emailed the electoral commission for further guidance on names so I'll see what they say.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Wednesday 25th March 12:27

[Jasandjules]

Politicians are Self Serving Scum Party?

[f13ldy]

Somewhatfoolish said:

Well I've emailed the electoral commission for further guidance on names so I'll see what they say.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Wednesday 25th March 12:27

I spent 5 years in the Electoral Commission.

In that department.

Your response is going to be something along the lines of 'The ballot paper cannot be in any way misleading to the electorate. Having NOTA is misleading a voter to vote for a party when they genuinely believe it is a vote for apathy'.

That is my brain serves me correctly.

You should do a FOI for other rejected party names over the last 5 years.

[sleep envy]

f13ldy said:

You should do a FOI for other rejected party names over the last 5 years.

how many were there?

[f13ldy]

sleep envy said:

f13ldy said:

You should do a FOI for other rejected party names over the last 5 years.

how many were there?

Probably going on 40 when I left in 07., but most would have been because they were to confusing with an already registered party. But there should be some more gems in there...

One guy (in a mental home none-the-less) tried register a party who emblem was a full frontal of Jo Guest.

[DrTre]

f13ldy said:

One guy (in a mental home none-the-less) tried register a party who emblem was a full frontal of Jo Guest.

[FourWheelDrift]

I quite like the "Cheap-Royalty-White-Rat-Catching-And-Safe-Sewage-Residents Party" and the "Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party" they would be good names to use, they might get no votes though so we'd have to have an Adder Party as back-up to win all the rotten boroughs

[whitechief]

Bald Brummies Against The Big Footed Conspiracy Party

Lt Col Kojak Slaphead the 3rd

[Somewhatfoolish]

f13ldy said:

You should do a FOI for other rejected party names over the last 5 years.

Done:

Dear Ms. Wilson,

Please could you supply me with all the proposed names and logos of political parties that have been rejected by the electoral commission, for whatever reason, during the last ten years (or as far back as it is possible for you to go). In addition could you confirm that one rejected party's proposed logo was a full frontal picture of Jo Guest, which is what some bloke on the internet told me.

Kind Regards,

Somewhatfoolish

[The jiffle king]

Mark Thomas (Political Comedian) is currently trying to change this. I saw him last week and he was sourcing policies from the public and then trying to get some things into law.

[Somewhatfoolish]

[i]"Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act, dated 25 February 2009, in which you requested the following:

All the proposed names and logos of political parties that have been rejected by the Electoral Commission, for whatever reason, during the last ten years (or as far back as it is possible to go). In addition, you have requested confirmation that one rejected party's proposed logo was a full frontal picture of Jo Guest.

The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days.

You may expect to receive a reply sent from the Commission by the 24 April 2009."[/i]

I'll keep people posted...

[funkyol]

[Somewhatfoolish]

Update:

Electoral Commission said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Electoral Commission said:

Somewhatfoolish said:

Electoral Commission said:

Dear Somewhatfoolish

Thank you for your recent email in respect of the above.

I would recommend that you submit an application for registration which can then be considered accordingly. I am happy to provide you with my thoughts on proposed party names and/or associated descriptions before you make such an application.

The relevant legislation which we work under is the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 - Sections 28 (for party names) and section 28A (for party descriptions).

I attach a link to the legislation for your information. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/Acts/acts2000/ukpga_2000004...

I trust this answers your query.

Dear Mr. Carr,

Thanks very much for your email. I have listed some possible party
names and I would be grateful if you could give me your thoughts on
each:

No politicians in politics
Politics is too important for politicians
Death to politicians
Die politicians die
Politicians are morons
Hate politicians? Vote for us!
Hate politicians?
Say no to party politics
Say no to professional politicians
Everyone else is even worse party
Anti politicians party

Thanks in advance,

Somewhatfoolish

Dear Somewhatfoolish

Thank you for your email.

I will look at your suggested party names shortly and provide you with a substantive response thereafter.

However, I can confirm that the name 'Politics is too important for politicians Death to politicians Die politicians die Politicians are morons Hate politicians? Vote for us! Hate politicians?' would be rejected on the basis that it would be considered obscene and/or offensive (section 28 of the PPERA). Furthermore, it exceeds the six word limit imposed on party names and descriptions.

Regards

Hi Martin,

Thanks for your email, but there seems to have been a problem in the
transmission somewhere as there were several names there. If you don't
see the character returns to separate the names again then I have also
separtated them manually with a forward character:

Politics is too important for politicians/
Death to politicians/
Die politicians die/
Politicians are morons/
Hate politicians? Vote for us!/
Hate politicians?

I see the rest of the names went through ok.

Best,

Thanks for the clarification.

I would recommend that 1) Death to Politicians; 2) Die Politicians die; 3) Politicians are morons; 4) Hate Politicians? Vote for us! and 5) Hate Politicians be rejected on the grounds that these names are offensive and/or obscene in accordance with section 28 of the PPERA.

Regards


Martin Carr
Policy Adviser (Advice & Induction)
The Electoral Commission
Trevelyan House
Great Peter Street
London SW1P 2HW
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

[Somewhatfoolish]

Ok, I have a response to the FOI request (I have one regarding a new party too but I'm keeping that under my hat at the moment) and it isn't looking good... any suggestions here:

Them said:

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 25 March 2009.

You requested: Please could you supply me with all the proposed names and logos of political parties that have been rejected by the electoral commission, for whatever reason, during the last ten years (or as far back as it is possible for you to go). In addition could you confirm that one rejected party's proposed logo was a full frontal picture of Jo Guest?

The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days. However, in order to do so, we are requesting a clarification of your request.

The Commission holds a large number of files relating to your request. The files are structured by party name these include political parties, third parties and minor parties. Many of these have up to 12 registered descriptions and a number of rejected descriptions. All correspondence and negotiations around logos and emblems are stored under party names, and we cannot easily search for rejected party names other than looking through each file individually. We hope that parties would seek advice before submitting RP1 forms to us, and those parties who do call to discuss potential party names and do not follow up with a registration after seeking advice on the legislation are not tracked.

This is a very broad request and, with the amount of information we hold, compliance would exceed the 18 hour maximum set in section 10(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We suggest you narrow your request to particular party names you are interested in.

In relation to the second part of your request, we are unable to confirm if we have received a request for a proposed logo, without further information such as a party name. If we did receive this request, it would have been rejected on the basis of section 29 (b) Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA), as it would be 'obscene and offensive'.

Please see the attached list of criteria from our guidance, and the relevant sections in PPERA, for information on party names, emblems and descriptions.

<<Party name and descriptions.doc>>

Party names
Section 28 of the PPERA and The Registration of Political Parties (Prohibited Words and Expressions) Order 2001.

Descriptions
Sections 28A and 28B of the PPERA for descriptions and joint descriptions.

Emblems
Section 29 of the PPERA


Once your response is received, your request will then be considered and you will receive the information requested within the statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Tuesday 31st March 15:44

Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Tuesday 31st March 15:45

[f13ldy]

Sounds like he is fobbing you off.

He is on about registered descriptions.

Reword the request asking for a list of rejected party names under Section 28 of PPERA (NOT descriptions).

They will hold rejected emblems of those parties, although he does have a point about that taking more than 18 hours.

Nah fk him, ask the for the list of all rejected names, once you get them post them here then, I'll see if any ring a bell and I'll pick a few out that he can find.

[BoRED S2upid]

f13ldy said:

sleep envy said:

f13ldy said:

You should do a FOI for other rejected party names over the last 5 years.

how many were there?

Probably going on 40 when I left in 07., but most would have been because they were to confusing with an already registered party. But there should be some more gems in there...

One guy (in a mental home none-the-less) tried register a party who emblem was a full frontal of Jo Guest.

40? that all. Somewhat folish will be sumbitting double that by the end of this thread.