Ghosts of Slough
- 18 Mar 08, 06:58 PM
Whilst my fellow political journalists all flocked to Ken Livingstone鈥檚 campaign launch in London, I took the train to Slough for a far more interesting story, largely ignored by the Westminster pack, and which I therefore had almost to myself.
There was much jubilation in the Slough Labour Party after an election court disqualified a local Conservative councillor, , for corrupt and fraudulent election practices.
Mr Khan was found to have secured his election last May by registering at various properties around his ward more than a hundred 鈥済host鈥 voters 鈥 people who didn鈥檛 exist or weren鈥檛 entitled to be on the voting register - and who then, of course, voted for him.
Criminal trial
Khan was also accused by the judge Richard Mawry of perverting the course of justice by getting several witnesses to commit what the judge called 鈥渂latant鈥 and 鈥渂are-faced perjury鈥 during the recent election court case to try and save his skin.
A criminal trial now looks likely. Three men have already been arrested and police inquiries are continuing.
The judge also awarded costs against Khan. The Conservative Party won鈥檛 say if they鈥檝e agreed to pay them - which strongly suggests to me that they have. Lord Ashcroft may race a total bill of around 拢500,000 for the party.
Richard Mawry鈥檚 judgement may be great news for Labour in Slough, but it will be less welcome to Labour nationally.
Mawry, you may recall, was the judge who presided over the Birmingham election fraud case in the spring of 2005, when he compared Birmingham to a banana republic and was scathing about this government鈥檚 introduction of postal voting on demand.
'Disastrous experiment'
After that notorious case ministers tried to tighten the rules on postal votes, but Mawry claimed today that these changes had made little difference and that voting fraud was an easy as ever. Indeed, if anything, Mawry鈥檚 judgement today was more scathing of government policy than it was in Birmingham three years ago.
The problem, he said, was not just the 鈥渄isastrous experiment of postal voting on demand鈥, but the extremely lax system of electoral registration in this country.
鈥淕reat Britain鈥檚 system of voter registration may well have been a quaint but harmless anomaly while personal voting was the norm but the introduction of postal voting on demand has made it lethal to the democratic process.鈥
Roll-stuffing, as the Australians call it, 鈥渋s childishly simple to commit,鈥 said Mawry, 鈥渁nd very difficult to detect.
'Decent choice'
To ignore the possibility that it is widespread, particularly in local elections, is a policy that an ostrich would despise.鈥
Above all, he criticised the belief by many Labour people that making it easier for people to vote, though postal ballots, would boost voting turn-out.
What really boost turn-out, he argued, was giving voters a decent choice. He pointed to the 85% turnout in last year鈥檚 French presidential election (where there鈥檚 no easy postal voting) as a good example of this and concluded: 鈥淚t鈥檚 not how you vote that brings out the voters. It鈥檚 the choices you are given.鈥
In speaking out so boldly, Richard Mawry is surely becoming something of a pain in the neck for this government, rather like Elizabeth Filkin and Sir Alistair Graham.
But he should be careful. They both lost their jobs.
Comments Post your comment
Mr Crick
As always, you've got the story. The idea that simply making it easier to vote by modern systems will bring the voters out is nonsensical. If they don't feel there's a credible person to vote for, they'll not bother. As has been shown over the last decade. Blair never even managed to equal Major's paltry showing of 27%, if memory serves me right. Which means that the government has not held the confidence of the electorate at any time in the life of any of the Blair or Brown premierships.
Amusingly I seem to recall Mr Kinnock - or was it Michael Foot - berating Mrs T because she didn't have a mandate for certain policies. The argument then was that her mere 47% of the vote was not representative. I guess the validity of a representative vote depends on whether you have power, or are still seeking it.
Complain about this post
Great scoop Crick !!
I wonder if the right-wing blogosphere will be covering this story tomorrow..
Answers on a postcard..
Complain about this post
The right wing blogosphere will be discussing this and the angle they will take is...thanks to labour, postal voting fraud is common and not just from labour councillors but even the Tories are tainted with this..er labour policy of postal voting... did i mention it was LABOUR that introduced postal voting? did i? well in case you missed it... its labour fault for introducing postal voting.
Quote of the week: (thus far)
"To ignore the possibility that it is widespread, particularly in local elections, is a policy that an ostrich would despise."
judge R.Mawry.
Keywords: Ostrich, elections, despise widespread, policy, ignore and Labour.
Complain about this post
Hi,
Did you take the train to Slough?
best wishes
Bob
Complain about this post
For God's sake see the bigger picture.
Once upon a time you had to be almost at death's door to get a postal vote. When they were complicatedly introduced for holidays, that was then thought extraordinary given the dangers.
But anyone who knew anything about elections knew what the consequences would be of allowing postal voting on demand and even enforcing it.
Wisdom before the event is now a thing of the past.
But then equally once upon a time our more sensible forefathers also realised the value of the licensing laws and licensed premises for alcohol and gambling and much more - in days when laws were seen as protectors of us all, as enablers rather than as some interference with freedom.
Freedom of the road and all else depends on enforced regulations. Controls are the basis for freedom not the converse policy of laissez faire.
Look at the results within schooling.
Freedom from Fear (as the most stupid expression yet) leaves us with fearless fools.
Postal Voting is only part of the wider problem of de-regulation today - where we do not see that we are creating the problems of tomorrow - by seeking "freedom" from directions whence freedom does not come.
In a future global economy where we are the under-dogs, to India and China, just see then what a policy of laissez faire will mean - for you.
Complain about this post
For God's sake see the bigger picture.
Once upon a time you had to be almost at death's door to get a postal vote. When they were complicatedly introduced for holidays, that was then thought extraordinary given the dangers.
But anyone who knew anything about elections knew what the consequences would be of allowing postal voting on demand and even enforcing it.
Wisdom before the event is now a thing of the past.
But then equally once upon a time our more sensible forefathers also realised the value of the licensing laws and licensed premises for alcohol and gambling and much more - in days when laws were seen as protectors of us all, as enablers rather than as some interference with freedom.
Freedom of the road and all else depends on enforced regulations. Controls are the basis for freedom not the converse policy of laissez faire.
Look at the results within schooling.
Freedom from Fear (as the most stupid expression yet) leaves us with fearless fools.
Postal Voting is only part of the wider problem of de-regulation today - where we do not see that we are creating the problems of tomorrow - by seeking "freedom" from directions whence freedom does not come.
In a future global economy where we are the under-dogs, to India and China, just see then what a policy of laissez faire will mean - for you.
Complain about this post
Good post Len. Mine was not printed but if anyone is in any doubt then go to India and find out how they do things there - 50% of ALL transactions are in the black economy. I worked for several years on projects funded by the World Bank the precise objectives of which were to encourage Indian policy makers to use research to base policy on. It is an uphill struggle as so many officials are in situ merely because they are related (third cousin twice removed etc) to someone in a position with the power to appoint and very often they do not have the qualifications for the job or any interest in social progress. India is not a democracy it is a nepatocracy.
Complain about this post