Skip to main content

Labour caught fiddling the voting system again

The linked story is one to Leeds where I knew there was postal vote fraud going on (but did not have evidence). Now we have evidence of the Labour Group Leader telling people to throw away Lib Dem votes (strictly flush away).

Labour have a history of electoral fraud in many large cities. Historically this involved personation (people pretending to be someone else). The idea of making people sign for their votes is a good idea because it allows the situation to be checked later. Sadly it does not pick up who is personating, but it does pick up the fact that personation occurs.

If people are elected through fraud and/or personation then an election petition can be raised. To lose an election petition is an expensive thing and also means that those people elected are banned from standing in the by-election caused.

This is caused "General Corruption" and it makes the assumption that the candidates and agents have a responsiblity for ensuring that their activists behave in a lawful manner - incidentally that does not mean throwing Lib Dem votes down the toilet - note Labour.

In Birmingham Labour have put Mohammed Afzal up for election again notwithstanding the fact that he was elected through general corruption previously.

The fact that the Court of Appeal decided that he had not had a fair trial on the allegations that he was in a particular warehouse "sorting out" postal votes (ie filling them in) does not mean that he was not responsible for failing to ensure that his fellow candidates and agents behaved lawfully.

He may claim that he had no knowledge that his party were committing electoral fraud on an "industrial scale". However, I would be surprised if people in the Labour Party generally were not aware of this. What the election court judgement said about his evidence was:
It would perhaps be kinder to draw a veil over Mr Afzal's attempts to explain his activities over the period between 10.00 pm on 8th June and 5.00 am on 9th June.

When questioned by Mr Sukul with some interventions from myself, Mr Afzal's evidence became wilder and wilder and less and less credible. Obvious lie followed obvious lie until even Mr Afzal realised that he was doing himself no favours.
481. The brutal fact is that he could not account satisfactorily for his movements on the night nor could he account for the telephone calls that had been disclosed by the records.

This is quoted in the Court of Appeal Judgment as well.

Labour have fiddled elections to some extent in Birmingham for decades. What they have done nationally is to make fraud easier. Oddly enough one of the more useful aspects of the changes to law (making people sign for their ballot papers) was found to be unworkable this time. This, however, needs to be done in the future.

The Labour Party's attitude to electoral fraud however has to be recognised in the fact that they have not expelled the 5 ex-councillors found personally responsible for election fiddling and they have allowed one of the people elected as a result of fraud to restand. That is not a "zero tolerance" approach to vote fraud.

Source Material:
executive_summary_of_judgment_bordesley_green_aston_ward.pdf
full_judgment_bordesley_green_aston_wards_election_10th_june_2004.pdf
Court of Appeal Afzal

Comments

ESCAPE said…
Hi I recieved a letter from my local conservative, saying "thankyou for voting for the last conservative candidate" , "can you vote for me etc" well I have not ever voted form this address so where did they get that I voted for this person. Or is this a standard letter, it came through the post. Did someone fill it in for me at the final count as I had not shown up, make you wounder.

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…