the missing 6,000+ voters: instructions given to Electoral Registration Officers in 2013

In 2013 Electoral Registration Officers were issued with new instructions about how they should register voters – the annual canvass was postponed so that the new way of registering voters (individually and not by head of household) would be as accurate as possible.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/794/contents/made

and

The Electoral Registration (Disclosure of Electoral Registers) Regulations 2013

The latter included the following – and yet our Electoral Registration still managed to lose more than 6,000 voters from the electoral roll that year:

… “5. It is particularly important that a comprehensive canvass is conducted in 2013-14 in order to achieve as complete and accurate registers as possible ahead of the transition to IER. This will help to maximise the number of electors who can be ‘confirmed’ during the transition, which will in turn help to reduce the number of electors that EROs will need to follow up with and invite to register individually.

6. As always, EROs will need to ensure that they have robust plans in place for the annual canvass process and should also review their risk registers to ensure that any additional or different risks and related mitigating action have been identified and are reflected.”


9. Although the timing of the 2013 canvass has changed, the processes to be followed will be the same as in any other year. EROs are still legally required to take all steps that are necessary for the purposes of maintaining the electoral register, including:

• sending more than once to any address the form to be used for the canvass
• making on one or more occasions house-to-house enquiries
• making contact by such other means as the ERO thinks appropriate with persons who do not have an entry in the register
• inspecting any records held by any person which the ERO is permitted to inspect
• providing training to persons under their direction or control in connection with the carrying out of the duty

…15. Once decisions have been taken as to when and how the house-to-house enquiry part of their canvass will be carried out, EROs should establish how many canvassers will be needed and when, and put in place plans to ensure that sufficient staff can be recruited, trained and supervised to carry out house-to-house enquiries. EROs’ plans should also reflect how, when and on what basis canvassers will be paid.

16. EROs should bear in mind that existing or experienced canvassers may not be available for part or all of the revised canvass period or willing to work at the required times, and that they may therefore need to undertake additional recruitment exercises, targeting new or different groups. The timing of recruitment should be planned to take into account the likely increased demand for seasonal and temporary staff in other local businesses in the run-up to and during the festive period.

17. Any additional or different risks arising from carrying out house-to-house enquiries at a different time should be identified in the ERO’s risk register and appropriate mitigating action put in place. This might include, for example, risks associated with canvassing in bad weather or when there are limiteddaylight hours, and how these can be addressed through canvasser training and supervision.

…27. EROs should take steps to make local political parties and elected representatives aware of the changed register publication date at an early stage.

On-going registration work following publication of the register
28. The duty to maintain the register and undertake the steps set out in Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (as amended) appliesthroughout the year and is not altered by the postponement of the 2013 canvass. Continuing registration work following the publication of the revised registers in early 2014 will enable EROs to ensure that they have carried out all of the necessary steps by the time of the scheduled 2014 polls, which means that the register used for the 2014 polls will be as up to date as possible, and will also help to maximise the number of electors who are successfully confirmed during the transition to IER, thus reducing the amount of follow-up work that EROs will be required to do to contact those who have not been confirmed and invite them to register.

Council, developers, secret meeting in the last month …..

Simply inputting into Google the search terms “council developer secret meetings uk” and reducing searches tonthe last month only brings up, amongst many other examples, these interesting results:

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/2014/motion-for-transparency-in-planning-decisions-voted-down-by-tories

http://www.wigantoday.net/news/local/counciller-secretly-met-with-developers-1-6882202

http://www.thanetgazette.co.uk/VIDEO-Councillor-chased-leaving-meeting-secret/story-23187514-detail/story.html

http://www.westsussextoday.co.uk/news/letters/letter-secret-meetings-over-development-1-6376761

http://www.leek-news.co.uk/Housing-sites-Staffordshire-Moorlands-remain/story-23719089-detail/story.html

How do you do a representative telephone survey when many people are ex-directory – and its implications for our missing 6,000 plus voters

http://www.middevongazette.co.uk/Poll-junction-27-development-flawed-campaigners/story-23972600-detail/story.html

an interesting point for us is the remark that:

“RDD uses the Mid Devon telephone directory as a sample frame for all Mid-Devon households,” he said. The latest figures from BT, which includes non-BT numbers, shows that ‘the ex-directory figure currently stands at 58% of people registered with the UK Telephone Number Database. Added to that the latest figures from Ofcom show that 16% of the UK homes are now mobile only. I believe it is fair to assume that this figure will hold true in Mid Devon, which means that one in six residents were excluded from the ICM study on that basis.

If we combine both factors by my reckoning that means only 35% of Mid Devon households both have a landline and are listed in the phone directory. To put it another way, the developers’ study excluded 65% of the Mid Devon population. That’s before taking into account the response rates, time of day they called, etc. but they won’t share any further details with me.

“It is quite difficult to imagine how the developers can claim that the locals are behind them when they excluded the bulk of us from their research.”

This, of course, has implications for our missing 6,000 plus voters missing from our electoral roll, since our CEO said to the Parliamentary Committee examining his registration methods, that his choice of using telephone canvassing rather than house to house visits, was superior.

How it can be superior in these circumstances is at best questionable. And we see from a recent Freedom of Information request, he has been asked when, how and with what resources and what results he conducted the telephone surveys.

The response will be extremely interesting.

Three Dorset councils merge all admin functions

Three separate councils and councillors will remain but will share a CEO and all admin functions:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-29870925

Where Dorset leads will East Devon, Mid-Devon, Teignbridge and/or Exeter follow? It is said the Dorset councils will save around £200 million a year.