Skip to main content

Election Petitions 2008

I have obtained a copy of both of the election petitions from 2008. I have not identified any conclusions from the petitions.

Northwood and Birches Head Ward - Stoke
This petition raised by Eve Maley alleges procedural problems at the count. She was an independent against "Potteries Alliance", BNP, Labour and Lib Dems and lost in the end by one vote.

Quoting from the petition:

"The result of the first count was that the Petitioner had won by one vote. A recount was requested on behalf of [the winner] and the result of this recount was that the Petitioner had one more vote than the [the winner]. [the winner] asked for another recount, the result of which was also that the Petitioner had won by one vote.

"The petitioner was advised during the count that the third recount ahd produced the same result as the previous counts, but that on the fourth recount, held again at the request of [the winner] two extra ballot papers had been count, marked in his favour and the reasult, therefore, was that he had one more vote than the Petitioner."

"The petitioner requested a recount but the [returning officer] refused the Petitioner her request and declared [the winner] as duly elected."

"During the count, the Petitioner was not shown any rejected ballot papers and therefore, not given any opportunity to object to any which were rejected."

"The total number of votes which were cast remained the same in all five counts."

The [returning officer] did not conduct the elections properly in that:

a) He failed to properly count and record the number of ballot papers in each ballot box.
b) He failed in the presence of the election agents to verify each ballot paper account.
c) He failed to count such of the postal ballot papers as were duly returned and record the number counted.
d) He failed to allow the Petitioner a re-count when in the circumstances of the case, such a request was reasonable. Further or alternatively the [returning officer] should have allowed the re-count given all the circumstances surrounding the re-count and given that the 1st Respondent would have, any in fact, has now appeared biased particularly in light of the ligitation the parties are involved in.
e) He may have rejected ballot papers which ought not to have been rejected and/or failed to reject ballot papers which ought to have been rejected.
f) He failed to give the Petitioner a proper opportunity to object to any rejection of a ballot paper."

This will be an interesting one to see the outcome which on the allegations has potential to overturn the result and have a re-election. I cannot see the court changing the result, however.

Manningham Ward - Bradford
A petition by Norman Scarth who was a candidate.

"That Norman Scarth was unlawfully arrested and unlawfully imprisoned by West Yorkshire Police to prevent him campaigning for votes. This was on orders from very high up, & it was specifically stated that he was to be detained "until voting had ended". He was then released without charge."

Which seems a curious one, but not one that would be likely to overturn a result unless the result was close.

He has an online commentary here and website here.

The result was
Arshad Ali (Res GG) 395
Mohammad Amin (Lab) 2319
Adam Jamal (Con) 246
Mohammed Ishrat Mirza (Lib Dem) 2122
John Edward Robinson (Green) 214
Norman Scarth (Anti-Crime) 66
Maj: 197 LAB GAIN

Much that it may be the case that he shouldn't have been arrested, I would be surprised if the court concluded that it affected whether or not he won or indeed whether Labour beat the Lib Dems - simply because he only got 66 votes.

It looks like Bradford MDC tried to stop the petition. That would also be difficult as he does have an argument even if not a very strong one.

He also stood in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election coming 25th Equal out of 26 candidates with 8 votes.


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…