Pickles article on election fraud

Sir Eric Pickles, who is launching the biggest-ever investigation into electoral fraud in Britain, warns in an article for The Daily Telegraph that the authorities are “turning a blind eye to criminal conduct”.


By Peter Dominiczak, Political Editor7:35PM BST 12 Aug 2015
Electoral fraud is being ignored in the same way that child sex abuse allegations have been because politically correct police forces and councils fear offending ethnic minorities, the Government’s anti-corruption tsar says today.
Sir Eric Pickles, who is launching the biggest-ever investigation into electoral fraud in Britain, warns in an article for The Daily Telegraph that the authorities are “turning a blind eye to criminal conduct”.
It comes after Lutfur Rahman, the mayor of Tower Hamlets in east London, was earlier this year removed from office after he was found guilty of electoral fraud.
Sir Eric compares the lack of action on allegations of electoral fraud to the scandal of local authorities and police forces ignoring claims of child sex abuse in towns across Britain.
Many of those allegations concerned Asian gangs targeting vulnerable young girls.
The law must always be “applied equally and fairly to everyone”, Sir Eric warns.
“In Tower Hamlets, police and council staff failed to tackle intimidation – often in foreign languages – both inside and outside polling stations,” Mr Pickles writes.
“Just as we have seen with child sexual exploitation in places like Rochdale and Rotherham, institutionalised political correctness can lead to the state turning a blind eye to criminal conduct. But the law must be applied equally and fairly to everyone.
“Integration and good community relations are undermined by the failure to do so.”
He adds: “The problems go deep – despite years of warnings of misconduct in Tower Hamlets, the state watchdogs gave the borough’s electoral system a gold-star rating for integrity in inspection reports. We still have a series of tick-box inspections of town hall returning officers that are as ineffectual and useless as those once practised by the now-abolished Audit Commission.”
Sir Eric, who was Communities and Local Government Secretary until David Cameron’s last reshuffle, said that the Government is “no longer prepared to turn a blind eye to Britain’s modern day rotten boroughs”.
His review will report by the end of the year and will examine what steps are necessary to stop voter registration fraud and error, postal voting fraud, impersonation, intimidation and bribery.
Sir Eric raises concerns that the London mayoral elections next year could be mired by voter fraud.
“Despite the fact there are London elections next year, a sizeable minority of those voters signed up in Tower Hamlets remain unverified and could be fakes,” he writes.
“In Hackney, the situation is even worse, with almost a quarter of the electorate unverified and potentially non-existent. We urgently need to clean up these registers. Across the country, electors from abroad are not properly checked to ensure that they qualify to vote when they register.
“Fraudulent registration is frequently tied to illegal immigration, as illegal migrants sign up to make it easier to get credit or a mobile phone. Such illegality feeds through to further crimes, such as benefit and housing fraud.”
Theresa May, the Home Secretary, earlier this year set up a major inquiry into child abuse following revelations about the crimes committed by Jimmy Savile as well as disclosures about abuse in Derby, Oxford and towns across Britain.
There were also a series of allegations about a Westminster paedophile ring.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11799673/Eric-Pickles-Political-correct-officials-ignoring-electoral-fraud-just-like-sex-abuse.html

Teflon coating – 2

From P Freeman, comment on earlier post:

I learned today from a FoI to the Electoral Commission that our ERO / RO has not fulfilled his responsibilities in another area, specifically ‘How many people tried to vote on polling day and were found not to be registered?’.

Most other ERO/RO have provided this information, but a few including East Devon’s RO/ERO have not.

See https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/east_devon_may_2015_elections_re?nocache=incoming-691871#incoming-691871 .

Is our Electoral and Returning Officer Teflon coated?

It would seem so.

East Devon Election and Returning Officer Mark Williams (also CEO of East Devon District Council) rather grudgingly admitted that “things had gone wrong” at the last election but said it would not happen again in this newspaper article published today:

image

No mention of the fact that he was hauled in to a Parliamentary Committee to explain why he “lost” 6,000 voters (answer: because he thought his idea of telephoning missing voters was better than the government’s guidance of visiting them), was particularly noted by the Electoral Commission for not following those guidelines, or why East Devon was one of only SEVEN councils out of more than 400 to have made MULTIPLE mistakes. OR that he has been doing the job for years but still doesn’t seem to have got it quite right.

If it were a junior officer or councillor who had not been considered up-to-scratch (particularly an Independent Councillor) would he or she had got off so lightly?

Teflon-coated?

Council launches review of polling districts and stations

“East Devon residents are asked for their views and suggestions on polling stations ready for council to consider in December

East Devon District Council is due to launch a review into the district’s polling districts and polling places and is seeking feedback from the public.

The council will be pleased to receive views from anyone, but particularly stakeholders, such as electors, parishes, political parties and councillors. It will also be grateful for comments from people and organisations with expertise in access for people with disabilities.

Anyone who would like information about a particular parish or part of the district should contact us either by e-mail (elections@eastdevon.gov.uk) or telephone (01395 517550).

East Devon District Council’s Chief Executive, Mark Williams, said:

“Over the years, the locations where voting takes place in East Devon have remained the same, except for occasions where a building is no longer available. Following the recent election we now need to review the existing situation.

“If anyone thinks we should be looking at alternative locations to the polling stations that were used in May this year or have comments on the stations that were used, please could they let us have their views as soon as possible.”
Views and comments should be made in writing, setting out any alternative suggestions, by no later than Friday, 25 September 2015 to the Electoral Services Manager, East Devon District Council, Council Offices, Knowle, Sidmouth EX10 8HL

The Chief Executive will make proposals to the council, taking account of all the views and comments that are received. The council meeting where the recommendations will be considered will be held on Wednesday 16 December 2015 and will be open to the public.”

If you have any reservations about locations or access to polling stations do let Mr Williams know. It is a very long time since these locations were first chosen and some of them may now be inappropriate.

One assumes that locations in the ownership of or linked closely to serving councillors will not be considered appropriate.

Scrutiny Agenda: Thursday , 30 July 2015 ; 6.00pm

Click to access 300715-scrutiny-agenda-combined.pdf

8  NHS Northern, Eastern and Western Devon Clinical Commissioning Group decision on community hospital beds (pages 9 – 10)   A representative from the NEW Devon CCG has been requested to attend by the Chairman to discuss the recent decision on community beds on 16 July 2015, with particular focus on the weight given to the stakeholder report, chaired by Sir JohnEvans.
9
Financial Plan and Draft Transformation strategy
(pages 11- 45) A  chance for the Committee to debate the Financial Plan and draft Transformation
Strategy that sets both the financial and cultural approach for the future.
10
Sickness absence (pages 46–51) A report on measures in place to impact on the number of working days lost due to sickness absence. The requirement for this report was previously identified by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee in reviewing the performance indicator relating to working days lost.
11 Media Protocol (pages 52 – 62) An opportunity for the Committee to familiarise themselves with the recently updated and approved protocol and raise questions in respect of the Council’s East Devon District Council communications.   The protocol as presented to Cabinet on 17 June 2015 is reproduced in these agenda papers.
12
Local Elections 7 May 2015 (pages 63 – 71)  A report of the Chief Executive on the issues raised by the Committee in relation to the recent local elections and the learning points for future elections.
13
Scrutiny forward plan (page 72)  Opportunity for the committee to raise topics for scoping, to determine if and when they should be listed on the forward plan.

Highlight:

ELECTORAL COMMISSION REPORT ON MAY 2015 VOTING PROBLEMS:
“Multiple errors
64* –Some authorities experienced more than one issue in their delivery of the elections which either individually or cumulatively may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election.
*

Seven ROs overseeing elections in the following local authorities: Allerdale, Darlington, East Devon, East Lindsey, Kingston upon Hull, Stoke on Trent, and West Lindsey.”

So, when Mark Williams makes light of his difficulties with this year’s elections and blames  pressure of work and inexperienced staff , remember that only these 7 local authorities out of a total of 433 had multiple mistakes.

 

Tories accept voting register with nearly 2 million people missing – ignores Electoral Commission advice to spend a further year working on it

Labour accuses David Cameron of manipulating electoral system:

http://gu.com/p/4am25?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Well, that will please Mark Williams – the Electoral Registration Officer who “lost” 6000 voters in East Devon, was heavily criticised for it in Parliament and refuses to apologise for his mistakes:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2015/07/15/being-in-charge-of-elections-at-eddc-means-never-having-to-say-sorry-and-blaming-your-staff/

Being in charge of elections at EDDC means never having to say sorry and blaming your staff

Anyone else think this press release is another whitewash, hogwash, brainwash spin cycle.

Elections watchdog report confirms that complexity of polls contributed to errors

East Devon Returning Officer welcomes Electoral Commission comments and confirms improvements to service
The Electoral Commission has today (15 July) published its review of the multiple elections that took place on 7 May 2015 – an unusual occurrence, where for the first time since 1979 the General Election, District, Town and Parish Council elections all took place on the same day. To put this into context, in East Devon, election notices were published for a total of 119 elections covering four local authority boundaries (East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and West Devon).

The report – which includes the elections watchdog’s assessment of the performance of Returning Officers – highlights the many administrative issues that arose across the country, ranging from ballot papers issued in error to printing mistakes. But it also confirms that: ‘…the complexity of the polls was a contributing factor: errors were predominantly made in areas where more than one election was taking place…such complexity must be considered as an increased risk factor in the planning and delivery of the election(s).’

A lack of experienced staff was another problem that affected administration efficiency: ‘As most ROs rely on a small dedicated team of staff to organise elections, they rarely have additional experienced staff available to augment the core team to support the management of combined polls or where there are complex cross-boundary issues to resolve.’

However, overall satisfaction was good, as the Electoral Commission’s report found that:

• ‘Nine in ten people surveyed (91%) said the elections in May were well-run.’
• ‘Nearly all (94%) of those who voted in person at a polling station were satisfied with the process.’
• ‘Nearly all (97%) of those who voted by post were satisfied with voting this way. Just over 16% of electors chose to vote by post at the General Election, at the 2010 General Election, the figure was 15%.’

East Devon’s Returning Officer (RO), Mark Williams, is referenced in the report due to his failure to meet two of the Electoral Commission performance standards, as a result of two administrative errors, which may have had a detrimental impact on voters and those standing for election. These were:

1. Incorrect guidance on the back of the postal voting statement that potentially affected a number of postal voters in the district elections.
In response to this comment, Mark Williams said: “Fortunately this matter was identified very speedily and prompt corrective action was taken. I fully accept that the error shouldn’t have happened and I apologised at the time. Even though we issued in excess of 11,000 postal votes, only 14 postal votes needed to be re-issued as a result of the error. It was clear that postal voters used their common sense and followed the instructions on the ballot paper rather than the general guidance on the back of the postal voting statement.

“I know that comment has been made about the cost of the mail-out to those potentially affected by the mistake, but I can assure Council Tax payers that they have not been affected by this, as the cost was covered by ring fenced grants, which we received from HM Government.”

2. The second issue related to a temporary 24-hour arrangement that applied to district council postal votes as a result of concerns raised by a registered political party.
Commenting on this issue, Mark Williams said: “All ROs come under intense pressure during an election period and the Electoral Commission’s report is a timely reminder that we must comply with guidance and legislation despite the pressure of an election. In the case of this matter, it affected 12 postal votes for the district council, all of which were actually included in the count.”

Conclusion
Overall, Mark Williams feels that the 2015 elections were an intense, but successful experience, although he is at pains to point out that he and his team will be redoubling their efforts to ensure that the lessons learnt from these multiple elections are not repeated in the future. “I have a young team who did their very best to provide an excellent service to electors. I acknowledge that we fell short – as highlighted by the Electoral Commission – but when put in context, all 110,000 electors had the opportunity to cast their vote and the election results were robust and not challenged.

“We will be working with the Electoral Commission to identify and implement practical measures that will improve the voting process. Developing the resources of the elections and electoral registration teams is a key immediate priority and we are looking to recruit an additional officer for these services, who will be fully trained in the use of the specialist software that is used for electoral registration and elections. It is important that the high levels of trust that voters place in us are sustained.”

Scrutiny
A report on the issues that arose from the combined Parliamentary, District and Town & Parish Council elections will be presented to the Scrutiny Committee by the Returning Officer Mark Williams on 30 July 2015.

Mark Williams early exit from South Somerset

Wonder if there will be a gagging agreement between EDDC and SSDC re their discussions and decisions about Mr Williams sudden and unanticipated early exit as part-time CEO at South Somerset?

South Somerset will be losing over £100,000 on the deal and it seems EDDC is seamlessly doubling the CEO’s hours, costing us a fair old whack too as this will not have been included in this year’s budget.

We will probably never know.

Still, at least Mr Cohen should have much less to do with his boss back in the driving seat full time, which can only be a good thing. He will have time to reflect on the Information Commissioner’s comments that EDDC (under his lead for the relication project) was considered discourteous, unhelpful and misleading at the recent court case and he can think of ways to rehabilitate EDDC’s reputation – something that could take many hours.

Mark Williams to leave South Somerset by the end of this month?

Oddly, discussions on alternative arrangement have taken place only with Conservative and Independent councillors and this is on the council’s agenda for this Thursday:

” …the Leader and Deputy Leader together with the Conservative Group and Independent Group Leaders met with the Leader of EDDC to discuss the current situation and the resolution of Council. As a result of those discussions it has been agreed with EDDC, subject to approval by Council, that the existing agreement be terminated by mutual consent and that to reflect the fact that EDDC could have insisted upon being served 12 months’ notice by this Council from 1st October 2015 that the Council pay 6 months’ worth of the fees due to EDDC. This equates to a one-off payment of £42,124.87. In addition it has been jointly agreed that if approved by Council, termination should take effect from 31st July 2015.”

Click to access 8%20Council%20Report%20July%202015%20FINAL.pdf

Does East Devon need a CEO if South Somerset doesn’t?

Thanks to an EDW correspondent for this exchange of views in a local edition of Streetlife:

https://www.streetlife.com/conversation/10dtul2zio85n/

Why are all the Devon seats amongst the last to declare?

6 am and not a single Devon seat declared.  Have our Returning Officers been paid too much for too little?

“Is the Deputy Chief Executive fit for purpose?”, some are now asking

EDDC’s press release today (see our previous post) speaks of ‘lessons to be learned’ from the Tribunal’s scathing report, though it overlooks the fact that the criticism was “unanimous”, and not solely from the judge. There is no reference to the reportedly “discourteous” manner exhibited by EDDC , though the Council regrets  that the Tribunal found it at times “unhelpful”.

To compare this press release with the one posted earlier today from Save Our Sidmouth (which contains the the Tribunal’s devastating comments), go to these links:
http://eastdevon.gov.uk/news/2015/05/council-prepares-to-release-documents-that-sparked-tribunal/
and http://saveoursidmouth.com/2015/05/05/sos-press-release-on-tribunal-decision/

Who will take the decision whether to appeal the appeal for disclosurof Knowle relocation documents?

The Chief Executive (Williams) and Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) along with ? who else must have taken the original decision to suppress the reports discussed in secret meetings when they were requested by Mr Woodward,

This decision to suppress the reports, to our knowledge was never brought to any public council committee.  Who took the decision to suppress?

Eventually, the Information commissioner said that (redacted) reports should be published.

The ” council” then decided to appeal this decision.  Who made that decision and why?  Who reviewed it and agreed with it?  How many councillors knew what was happening?  Who thought up the idea of saying reports could not be published because the consultant was “an embedded employee” of the council?

The Deputy Chief Executive (Cohen) was chosen to present the justification for suppression and appeal at the court case in August 2014.  The council’s solicitor (Lennox Gordon) presumably must have been asked for advice (though at the Court case they had engaged an outside barrister to present the case).  The Chief Executive and ? who else must have then sanctioned this course of action.  It was, to our knowledge, never brought to any public council committee.  Who else knew about this?

At the Court case, Deputy Chief Executive Cohen admitted that at least one report from the outside consultant (Pratten) had been changed by him – Cohen – before being given to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  The Overview and Scrutiny Committee were not aware of this at the time and (as far as we know) still do not know what was changed or why.  Who else (if anyone)  was involved in the decision to change the document before it went to them?  Have members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee since seen the original?  Would it have changed their views if they did not see it and have not since seen it?

Are there more reports (changed, not changed) other than those under review that they and other councillors should have seen prior to making an informed decision about relocation either to Skypark or Honiton/Exmouth and then sale of Knowle that might have affected their decision?

After the Court case in August 2014 it appears that EDDC dragged its heels in providing the judge with documents and insisted that some of them were illegible.  However, subsequently, legible copies were found and submitted as late as March 2015.  Who insisted that only illegible copies were available?  Who knew that there were legible copies available and why were they delayed?  Why the long delay?

Now that the court has heavily criticised all those involved, the decision can again be appealed, at probably even greater cost than the last appeal.  We do not yet know the full cost of the last appeal except that it is more than £11,000 PLUS officer time, as EDDC never apportions cost of officer time to its work.

So, who takes the decision to appeal the appeal?  The same people who suppressed the documents?  The person/people who altered at least one document before it went to a committee?  The people who said that some documents were illegible when they were not?   The people criticised by the court for being “unhelpful and discourteous?

Who is left who has not been involved in this sorry saga who can be trusted to find out the answers and make decisions now?  If we return the “same old” how can we be sure this will not be brushed under a carpet so precariously balanced on all that is now underneath it?

Brave independent councillors kept bringing this subject up time and time again only to be told to stop tilting at windmills.  What is here is definitely not windmills.

Only a vote for Independents tomorrow can ensure that the carpet is lifted so that we can all see what has been swept underneath it all these years.

Including, of course, some searching questions about the seven year delay to a Local Plan which has left us at the mercy of rapacious developers.

The  future is in your hands tomorrow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bucks, so many bucks, so many questions … such a nasty, nasty smell of dirty linen

Now we have had time to digest the findings of the judge in Information Commissioner and Jeremy Woodward (and many, many thanks are due to Jeremy and his occasional stand-in Richard Thurlow for doggedly pursuing this) there are SO many questions to be asked, some of which current commentators have already suggested.  Now, where will the buck stop and who is going to answer questions ?

First and foremost we must be concerned with the damning evidence.  In Tower Hamlets, when the Commissioners arrived to take it over, the first thing they did was sequester ALL documents and correspondence though it is believed that some were already missing.  Is it possible that some of OUR evidence is vulnerable to deletion and shredding?  We hope not but we cannot be sure.  However, traces will abound everywhere and sometimes what is missing throws even more light on what is going on.

At best what has occured is incompetence and, at worst, deceit –  as a correspondent says – which is it?

The questions people are posing:

1.  The different versions of documents and their legibility.  The Judge in the case is STILL not sure he has original documents or all documents.  He says that for months EDDC said that they could not provide legible copies of documents and yet, at the last moment, some turned up.  However, the judge also says that he is not entirely sure they saw ALL the documents they were meant to see – he refers to document 5A when he appears not to have been given document 5, for example.

2.  At the hearing Richard Cohen admitted that he did not give an original version of a document to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee but an “amended” one.  Where is the original copy of THIS document and would it have changed what that committee decided?

3.  Why did EDDC officers and top councillors keep delaying the process.  Were they hopeful that this could be kept under wraps until after the election tomorrow.  They almost managed it if this was the case.

4.  How and why were the decisions to prevaricate made and by whom:  was it CEO/Cohen/Diviani or a larger (or smaller) group?

5.  How will those in (4) above manage to keep this from the NEXT Overview and Scrutiny Committee?

6.  Who decides what goes to an Overview and Scrutiny Committee?  Those in (4) above!  And will it go to the Standards Committee?  (Answer here:  almost certainly not if the same people remain in power).

7.  What is now the position of Knowle sale?

8.  Who takes these decisions – officers and then the councillors are led by the nose, or councillors and then officers are led by the nose or a combination of councillors AND officers and then everyone else is led by the nose?  We know from Councillor Peter Sullivan that, as a Conservative councillor, he was not allowed to see documents.  Who was in the “golden circle”?

9.  Why did NO-ONE blow the whistle when they realised what was happening?  Why was it left to brave Independent councillors, bloggers and – most important – local resident Jeremy Woodward, to uncover this very dirty, dirty linen?

Our CEO/Returning Officer makes yet another mistake

Mr Williams, in his capacity as Electoral Returning Officer, contacted Count Agents with the following information. Under the heading “Count Schedule and Location” it says:

Due to the obligations of the Returning Officer, it will not be possible to hold local counts for the local elections this year. All counting will take place at East Devon District Council Chamber, Sidmouth on Friday 7 May *and estimated timings are enclosed with this letter.”

It seems his staff for which he had a budget of more than £120,000 doesn’t include a proof reader … or anyone who knows that the elections take place on Thursday 7 May and the count commences on the morning of Friday 8 May 2015 (district).

And what EXACTLY are these new obligations that mean votes are not counted where they were cast?

Election hot topics on IEDA blogs.. and on the video intros

Confused about who to vote for, how many votes you have, or why all the talk about neighbourhood plans? This blog has brief, clear summaries: http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/candidates/sidmouth/cathy-gardner/

EDW also recommends Cathy’s video intro; and the one by the iEDA candidate standing against Paul Diviani (in Yarty), Steve Horner.
Many of you will already have watched this straight-talking one, which we highlighted yesterday : http://www.eastdevonalliance.org.uk/candidates/coly-valley/paul-arnott/

Then there’s one by Megan Armstrong (Exmouth); and by Martin Shaw (Seaton)…… the list goes on, and is steadily increasing.

Election only one week away!

Real Zorro puts EDDC CEO and Returning Officer under the spotlight

and is not impressed. Fortunately, he isn’t the Returning Officer for South Somerset where things seem to be runnung more smoothly – so far!

http://realzorro1.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/east-devon-one-man-three-jobs-what-can.html

Express and Echo picks up postal voting fiasco

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/Apology-issued-East-Devon-postal-voters-affected/story-26395839-detail/story.html

This story was broken by East Devon Watch.

Electoral Returning Officer budget for East Devon and performance standards required

The job is SEPARATE to any other post and each Returning Officer receives a fee for doing the job (often in excess of £20,000 per election) and a budget. It seems Mr Williams had a budget of more than £121,000 in 2010 to run this procedure:

The specified services are—

(a)conducting the election;

(b)discharging the returning officer’s duties at the election; and

(c)making arrangements for the election.”

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/830/made

He got it wrong in 2011 too:

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Officer-s-reminder-district-voters/story-11755815-detail/story.html

Here are the Performance Standards for Returning Officers – standard 1 on page 12 appears to have been breached:

Click to access Part-A-Returning-Officer-role-and-responsibilities.pdf

The monumental cock-up: Urgent instructions for people who received the wrong postal voting information

From a correspondent:

This is news hot from the East Devon election workers at the Knowle (today Sunday!).

They say they have had dozens of phone calls about the discrepancy between the “Instructions for voting by post” (i.e. vote ONCE only on Green ballot paper) and the Green ballot paper itself (where the instruction is to vote for the number of votes according to the number of seats).

The election worker at the Knowle is contacting all the people who left messages about the discrepancy in the instructions, to say the following action is being taken urgently:

1. A letter is being sent to all postal voters in the East Devon Constituency (NOT the Tiverton and Honiton or the Central Devon Constituencies).

2. The letter will explain that votes should be cast according to the instructions on the Green ballot paper, not according to the written “Instructions for voting by post”

3. If a person has already voted not in accordance with the instructions on the Green ballot paper, they should call Knowle and request a new ballot paper to be issued, which will be substituted for their vote already returned.”

Will the head of the instigator of this cock-up have to roll? It belongs to CEO of East Devon District Council (and Returning Officer) Mark Williams, so who knows? He got off scot-free after his appearance before the Parliamentary Commission on Voter Engagement last December where he was heavily criticised and singled out in their report for failing to do enough to register missing voters, so maybe the Teflon coating will remain – especially if the “same olds” remain in power at EDDC.

What will now happen if some people who had followed the instructions on the WHITE (wrong) paper do not cast new votes on the GREEN (correct) paper and the seat can only be decided by a handful of votes fewer than the number of incorrect postal votes for that ward?

NB: seeking clarification as to why workers state remediation letters are going out only to the “East Devon Constituency” as East Devon District Council covers THREE Parliamentary constituencies – East Devon (currently Swire), Tiverton and Honiton (currently Parish) and Mid-Devon (currently Stride). It seems unlikely that wrong instructions went out only to the “East Devon constituency” when the district elections are not governed by Parliamentary Constituency boundaries but by Local Authority boundaries which are very different.

Now, if incorrect voting instructions are confined only to the East Devon Parliamentary Constituency, that would need some explaining as separate instructions would have been produced for different areas of East Devon!