Skip to main content

Electoral Fraud - The Blair Government's Ace of Trumps

The Guardian reports on part of the story about Electoral Fraud.

Electoral Fraud has gone on for many years and there are voters you can find who were happy to give parties their voting card with the assumption that the party will get an informal proxy (aka Personation, which is a criminal offence) for them.

The big stress in Northern Ireland arose when one party started voting for the other parties' voters.

Meanwhile through a combination of incompetence and knowing creation of political advantage the massive increase of postal voting has occurred.

This in Birmingham (and many other large cities) has turned electoral fraud into a mass production industry. In one ward (Aston) I estimate between 1,000 and 2,000 ballot papers have some fraudulent element to them. It is, however, hard to prove fraud. We have two election courts being prepared for in Birmingham.

We may only be able to prove that something like 500 ballot papers were cast fraudulently in Aston (that's 2000 votes, 1,500 in the local elections and 500 in the European Election).

I am aware, however, that in my own ward South Yardley something like 400 votes were stolen from the voters.

I set up a website about election fraud some time ago and raised a judicial review into the situation about 2 years ago. Things have, however, in the mean time got substantially worse.

I would not be entirely surprised if there was an early general election with the result that Labour get the General Election out of the way before the verdict of the Election Courts. However, we are now getting quite close to the time for them to call it so probably the courts will reach their judgement before the general election.

We do then really have to think about having a general election when the elections are being defrauded in some wards to the extent of 25-50% of the votes cast.

My understanding is that the price of a blank ballot paper last year in Birmingham was around £16. I believe £3 was the price of a signed application. There were, therefore, paid canvassers going round getting the applications.

We do have a council investigation going on into electoral fraud, but it has been suspended whilst the Election Courts proceed.

When the court proceedings start I will post more details here. Some things need to remain confidential at the moment.


Bob Piper said…
I don't want to piss on your chips here John, to use a quaint old black country saying, nor would I in any way condone election fraud. But if we assumed you were correct and 500 ballot papers in Aston were fraudulent, and they all voted for Labour, (pretty big assumptions that you are correct) I'm afraid you would still have three Labour councillors. Also, as the European election papers were separate ballot papers, it does not follow that 500 ballot papers were all European ones.... and if they were, they couldn't be council ballot papers. As for Yardley the Labour majority was nearer 4,000 than 400 as I recall. Not, as I say, that fraud should be countenanced, but I tend to wait for the verdict of a court before pronouncing guilt (unlike you and our Home Secretary who seem to want to dispense with the legal formalities).
john said…
The point about election law is if there is proven to be a lot of organised fraud (say over 100 ballot papers) then that is a case to have a re-election.

If it is proven that candidates or those acting on behalf of candidates have been involved (and those candidates won) that is also a case to have a re-election.

We may only prove say 500 ballot papers.

I accept your point about proof. However, I have been much closer to this issue than most. I wrote the original election petition even though we now have a barrister on the case as well as Ayoub Khan administering it.

My claim is a figure between 1K and 2K in Aston (and more in Bordesley, but not just Labour).

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…