I thought it would be useful to put the Aston Election petition on the web. I need to tidy up the layout, but I haven't got the time for that at the moment. The words are verbatim.
I have been involved in three election petitions. One failed in 2000 and was based around Sparkhill. It failed because I told my lawyers that it needed to be served in 5 days and they got it served in 6. I also have advised the Bordesley Petition.
This particular petition was one I drafted. I have been working on raising the profile of the massive election frauds committed mainly by the Labour Party across the Country for some time now. With a bit of luck we will prove that in court by the end of March.
I hope to get the Bordesley Petition and put that on the web as well. There are about 2-3 petitions per year. These two petitions are the first to come to court based upon fraud in about a century. There were some that came close, but people pulled back.
The strength of the Aston petition is that Ayoub Khan has been very good in managing the legal processes. This is a difficult process and he has handled it very well.
Ayoub Khan was Lib Dem Councillor for Aston from 2003 to June 11 2004 (actually I think June 14, but that takes a knowledge of really arcane Local Government Law).
I have been involved in three election petitions. One failed in 2000 and was based around Sparkhill. It failed because I told my lawyers that it needed to be served in 5 days and they got it served in 6. I also have advised the Bordesley Petition.
This particular petition was one I drafted. I have been working on raising the profile of the massive election frauds committed mainly by the Labour Party across the Country for some time now. With a bit of luck we will prove that in court by the end of March.
I hope to get the Bordesley Petition and put that on the web as well. There are about 2-3 petitions per year. These two petitions are the first to come to court based upon fraud in about a century. There were some that came close, but people pulled back.
The strength of the Aston petition is that Ayoub Khan has been very good in managing the legal processes. This is a difficult process and he has handled it very well.
Ayoub Khan was Lib Dem Councillor for Aston from 2003 to June 11 2004 (actually I think June 14, but that takes a knowledge of really arcane Local Government Law).
Comments
If it is made too easy to fiddle elections then more people will do it - from all parties.
My allegation is that the Labour Party in parliament changed the law (true) which had the effect of making it more easy to fiddle elections (true) being aware that such a change in the law would benefit Labour (true).
Now you could argue the case that the official Labour position is that people should not fiddle elections and I would accept that.
It is, however, incontravertible that Labour believe that Labour Supporters with postal votes are four times more likely to have their votes cast than those without.
The really difficult question is to determine the level of awareness within the Labour Party (which has many honest members) and the willingness to turn a blind eye to the malpractise that goes on.
It is true that the situation has been gradually deteriorating since the Law has changed. However, the change in the law has as a direct consequence the electoral riot, burning of pillar box and threats to postmen (as well as offers of bribes).
None of our MEPs claimed that they travelled 7 times average travelling. One Scottish Parliament member, who has resigned did. I do not defend that activity. Given that he has resigned I ask what else we should do?
>and introduced a system with
>checks in it...
What checks? Which signatures are actually checked? The only check that is made is that there are signatures present not what the siguatures are.
The key question is that of whether the current situation is acceptable or not.
If you are arguing that it is acceptable then I disagree.
They may have gone along with the government proposals at the start, but they are not comfortable now.
I don't actually know what they did, however.
Speaking personally I have expressed concern each step of the way.
In the House on 10 June last year, Peter Hain said, "However, the idea that all elections in the past have been run perfectly and that unscrupulous individuals or politicians did not seek to exploit them is an illusion. I remember more than 30 years ago a Liberal by-election organiser saying proudly that he had voted in every Liberal by-election."
He could also have been thinking of the LD councillor jailed in 2001 for leading the biggest ever vote fraud in British history.
I'm not claiming that all LDs are criminals, nor do I claim that the LD party encourages such criminality, merely that electoral fraud always has gone on and always will go on.
John seems less concerned with democracy and more interested in getting party political ammunition. No comment I see about the alleged behaviour of some of the defeated candidates in Bordesley.
Now he suspects his Lib Dem colleagues also changed the law (true) which apparently encouraged fiddling, that suddenly doesn't become the concern any more. John, as I have said before, whilst you continue to try to wriggle off hooks you have impaled yourself on, no-one will trust you.
The law needs to be changed.
The Labour Party have a majority in parliament. I accept that some in the Lib Dems went along with these proposals initially, but a few years ago they recognised the error of their ways.
Exactly which way everyone voted in Parliament I am unsure.
I have not made that much of a comment about the PJP candidates in Bordelsey Green. They did chase me across Birmingham at one stage and did "assault" me in Station Road Police Station, Stechford.
However, what I want to see is an electoral system that has checks and balances and ensures that the choice of the voters wins not the biggest fraudsters.
Mr. Viggers: Yes, the Electoral Commission will develop proposals for a foundation model, as suggested in its report, "Delivering Democracy", and it will report before 31 March 2005. It will consult with interested individuals, including Members and political parties, as the development work gets under way next year. The model is expected to build on the benefits of all-postal voting but also to retain use of polling stations. As for legislation, as the hon. Gentleman will well know, that is a matter for the Government and the House."
So the Electoral Commission are reviewing the position and will report back after consulting with ALL Parties, because as the Lib Dem Spokesperson said in the Lords: "No one party should be able to change the voting system in opposition to others and without the approval of the Electoral Commission."
So... be clear... YOUR Party agreed to the changes to the legislation, and the GOVERNMENT has asked the Electoral Commission to review the situation.
Game, set and match. You lose!
I was initially a relatively lone voice on electoral fraud. Given the increases in the amounts of fraud my lone voice has been added to.
My key argument is that the current system is unacceptable and needs to be changed urgently.
I have not bothered to review exactly what the Lib Dems have done on this issue in the past. I, together with Lord Greaves, have put some effort into ensuring that we did take integrity into account.
My key difficulty has been proving the level of fraud. Once that has been proven (about a month from now) then will be the question as to what is or is not acceptable to people generally.
I last spoke to a senior Lib Dem last week who shared my concern on the matter.
I am, however, not a clone of Charles Kennedy.
The key argument as far as I am concerned is not about who did what, but that the current situation is unacceptable.
The secondary argument then relates to how we got here and why Labour Activists are so resistant to change.
On that basis I would expect you to retract "My allegation is that the Labour Party in parliament changed the law (true) which had the effect of making it more easy to fiddle elections (true) being aware that such a change in the law would benefit Labour (true)" on the basis that it is not (true).
This is true. Most people would be innocent as to what is going on.
>which had the effect of making it >more easy to fiddle elections
>(true)
This is also true.
>being aware that such a change in
>the law would benefit Labour
>(true)"
I would accept that the benefit for most people would be seen as the increase in probability of Labour supporters votes being cast.
I accept (and have made it clear elsewhere in this blog) that it is unlikely there was a conscious awareness in the majority of this change being linked to Labour fiddling elections.
On the issue of passing information to the police I have now reviewed the police evidence and should not comment on the details of that as yet. It is, however, the case that of the 50+ issues passed to the police I was previously aware of a large proportion (probably the majority) and was primarily responsible for passing them to the police.
There is more to the story here not least what the police called the operation that related to election offences.
Therefore, I will not retract the statement although I proffer the above expansion.
All your argument thereafter, falls.
I am not referring to the most Representation of the People Statutory Instrument (not quite sure of the year) which I have arguments with, but was not the big problem.
When was the particular piece of legislation passed that you are referring to?
I personally think offering bribes to postmen for postal votes and making bloodcurdling threats to them should not be part of election campaigns. This was in the press.
One estimate is that 2,500 ballot papers (7,500 local votes and 2,500 European) in Bordesley Green were fraudulent in some way.
I accept entirely that all parties do some fiddling somewhere in the country. I still hold the Majority Party in the House of Commons responsible for the law.
In fact Labour have undermined many of the checks and balances in the system.
The problem is that the current procedures are inclined to corrupt people.
In any event the challenge is to get things right. It may surprise you, but there is likely to be a general election soon :-)
I thought it was worth having a firm of lawyers who have experience in dealing with electoral matters.
I drafted the Aston petition, but I have been advising the PJP and Fatima Patwa.
I want the Law changed so that we have democracy based upon the secret ballot. I will even help Labour people who have suffered.
It is interesting, however, that I was photographed visiting FP&Co. I have been there on numerous occasions, but I don't remember going in a year ago.
Apart from that I don't think there is any link, but don't hold me to it.