Local Elections - May 5th

[steveL]

I think the actual phrase was "a massive statement". Presumably, that 'massive statement' was that if one of the opposition parties willingly stands aside, the non-Labour/Tory voters will vote for what's left. This is what bothers me about you Tom, you don't seem to be able to grasp the reality of what has just happened or why it was done.

As for ward budgets, where did that come from? Did I mention ward budgets? What has what SAB says in the Hartlepool Mail got to do with me?

You talk as if it's a big secret that PHF and other Independents want to see the scrapping of ward budgets when they have said so openly in council meetings and in their election literature. The reason they want them scrapped is that they are being used to bribe the electorate, especially before election time; we even had one councillor stating that he thought ward budgets "were a good way to buy votes."

Oh hang on a minute, that was YOU Tom, wasn't it?

[steveL]

Not sure I agree with you there stevel. People all over Europe and, some would say, thevWorld, are disenchanted with the established parties. We want change but the first passed the post system effectively disenfranchises at least half of the population. One reason Corbyn is attractive not only to the far left but many others as well is that he is different.
UKIP is more likely to disappear if there is a Remain vote than if there is a Leave. We need to get away from the two party, first passed the post system. Germany and many other countries rule by coalition and it works. We have minority governments that take us from one extreme to the other each pushing alternatives and opposite agendas. We need stability and a coalition could give that and also curb the more extreme policies. Compromise and conciliation can work. We certainly need it at a local level!

I don't know if anybody has done the analysis yet but I would guess that considerably more voted against the Labour Party than for. Yet they still rule the rule the roost.

All of that may be true or untrue. The question is, what has any of it got to do with UKIP?

I was watching Farage on the Sunday Politics last week and he was asked what relevance UKIP were to the local elections after June 23rd. Farage's answer was that the more councillors UKIP won on Thursday the louder the voice would be to force Cameron to fully implement BREXIT if that's the way the vote goes.

In other words, he's still harping on about Europe even if the country votes to leave it. They have nothing else to talk about.

I happen to think that Local Politics and Local Issues are important and it's about time UKIP started to take an interest in what's going on locally and not just see local elections as an opinion poll on UKIP's own attitude towards Europe.

I haven't seen any local policies from UKIP that they haven't nicked off this site.

[beanzontoast]

steveL, In some way I thank Councillor Paul Thompson for outing me from my user name, although i did say on this forum that the user name was, how can i say it a way of getting a view across without the political associations attached to it, and in that respect this forum and the user name system was of benefit to all.
As a Councillor on this forum it did not take long as predicted to find the untruth in the statement by SAB in the Hartlepool Mail regarding the UKIP stance
on WMB. within the council chamber, I thank you for the correction, and hope you will accept my assurance that i cannot and will not put information on this forum which compromises conversations with individuals from whichever political party.
That said I will make an exception i did indeed make the comment as you describe, it was at a Finance and policy meeting, it was only a few words and therefore only  part of a written statement to that committee, before i had finished speaking and therefore able to put my comment in perspective, Marg James saw the opportunity to, well create that soundbite, it was taken out of context and considering as a newby at council i did ask advice from several councillors she being one, disgusting behaviour.

[Hartlepudlion]

Mk1 that may or not be the case but Farage made his money before entering politics. Unlike Blair who made his money during and after Premiership.

[mk1]

Mk1 that may or not be the case

It is a fact that:
a) Farage was caught moving his money abroad in his brothers name to avoid tax.
b) Farage has refused to release his tax returns.

There is no 'may or may not be' about it.

but Farage made his money before entering politics. Unlike Blair who made his money during and after Premiership.

Farage is a tax avoiding bloodsucker who  makes the ordinary person pay more tax to make up for all the cash  he shifted abroad.
Blair is a war criminal  lying thieving  nut-job who believes 'god' talks to him. If you want to put Blair and Farage together then be my guest.

[DRiddle]

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/woking-election-result-thrown-out-5379770

This is an interesting case.

Seemingly what went on here was hundreds of people were added to the postal vote list quite late in the day toward the election.

These votes were then targeted and harvested by the winning candidate without the main rival candidate even knowing these people were on the postal vote register.

http://www.wokingnewsandmail.co.uk/?p=5039

Probably just an isolated case of malpractice I'd imagine. There are interesting comments from the returning officer who presided over this election about the whole issue of postal votes though. (See the article linked in above).

[DRiddle]

Oh and by the way, just in case anyone is interested, contesting an election is a dangerous situation to be involved in. If a petition against a winning candidate is successful and the election is declared 'void', if the case had dragged on and taken a while to reach a verdict there will obviously costs incurred.

Costs in such a situation will almost always have to be paid by the person who loses the case based on the recent case law I'm aware of.

Typical legal costs for a local election petition case which, initially at least, has to be put before the high court......... £150,000.

It's probably worth it for UKIP to use some money from their national kitty to fight one if they think they've got a good case anywhere in the country. Imagine the national coverage it could get them right before a referendum on the EU. It'd be worth far more than £150,000 in publicity.

On the flip side, risking a legal bill for £150,000 in exchange for £400 a month after tax by way of a councillors allowance isn't quite so worth it.

16 days to go before the deadline for election petitions.

[Hartlepudlion]

16 days to go before the deadline for election petitions.

Explain more please DRiddle

[fred c]

From your comments, can we assume that if a candidate is actually elected & is then subsequently disqualified after a successful petition was brought..... that candiate or the candidates party would be liable for the costs of the petition ?

[DRiddle]

My understanding is a petition to dispute an election result at local level must be submitted within 21 days of the vote. So the clock is ticking for any person or persons who feels there was some form of 'issue' with the election of a local candidate last Thursday (anywhere in the country, not necessarily in Hartlepool).

I'm not an expert, but it's quite easy to read up on these things.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06937/SN06937.pdf

For example in the document above it refers to a petition made in Birmingham in 2005.

An election court was convened in February 2005 to try the election petitions brought in the
wards of Bordesley Green and Aston under section 127 of the Representation of the People
Act 1983. The petitions alleged that the Labour Party respondents and their agents had
engaged in systematic and organised fraud of postal votes in the local elections held on 10
June 2004. The petitioners challenged the election of the three Labour councillors in each
ward.

Richard Mawrey QC, sitting as a Commissioner in the Election Court, delivered his
judgments on 4 April 2005. He found that the elections for both wards were void because of
the 'corrupt and illegal practices' on the part of the respondents and reported to the High
Court that for both wards:

'I found that corrupt and illegal practices have extensively prevailed at the
election of the authority for which the election was held...In summary, there
was extensive personation by the fraudulent alteration of postal ballots
improperly obtained from the true voters for the same ends...'

As a result of the judgments the election of each of the councillors was declared void and
under the provisions of section 160 of the Representation of the People Act 1983

Anyway, this isn't my fight, if indeed there's even a fight to be had. We only contested one ward and we won it fighting a very clean, very positive, solution based approach to campaigning.

However, for anyone who feels there is such an issue anywhere in the country, they should be aware of the following:

1 Local government election petitions
Local government election petitions may question whether a successful candidate was, at
the time of the election disqualified or was not duly elected (Parker's Law and Conduct of
Elections, paragraph 19.2). The Electoral Commission guidance for candidates for local
elections in England and Wales lists the grounds for a local election petition:
 the successful candidate was disqualified at the time of the election
 the successful candidate was not duly elected
 the election was invalidated by corrupt or illegal practices
 the election was invalidated because of general corruption or the employment
of a corrupt canvasser/agent.

For local elections the petition must be presented by four or more voters who voted or who
had the right to vote at the contested election or by one of the unsuccessful candidates.
An election petition must be in a form prescribed by the relevant Rules and must be
submitted within a set time. For local elections it is within 21 days after polling day. There are
exceptions to the time limit for lodging a petition; petitions relating to payment or other
rewards made in relation to corrupt or illegal practices must be filed within 28 days of the
alleged payment or reward. For petitions relating to corrupt or illegal practices that come to
light from returns or declarations relating to the successful candidate's expenses, these must
be filed within 14 days of the filing of the return.
The trial of a petition takes place in open court without a jury and is tried by one judge
qualified to hear the case taken from a rota. The judge, sitting as a Commissioner in the
Election Court, must have 10 years High Court experience and not be resident in the local
government area to which the petition relates. The court has the same powers as those of a
Parliamentary election court.
At the conclusion of the trial the court must determine whether the person whose election or
return is complained of, or any and what other person, was duly returned or elected, or
whether the election was void in the same way as for a Parliamentary election petition. For
local government election petitions the election court must notify the High Court of its
determination. This must be sent to the Secretary of State by the High Court.

Simply reporting the concern to the monitoring officer won't cut it. You have to go through the proper channels. Anyway, as I say, it's not my fight. 

[Heknocks68]

Anybody heard anymore about the Burn Valley voting fiasco? If nothing forthcoming then I take it the result stands! It seems the guy is already considered a councillor within the setup, regardless of eligibility to stand in the first place. Not holding breath on this one.