Do we have ANY statistics on votes at elections? Seems unlikely

It would appear that someone or some agency appears to ask for this information regularly – wonder how many local authorities register the replies that EDDC registers?

“Verification statements for the 2017 general election count

Date submitted: 19 July 2017

Summary of request

1. For each of your constituencies, a copy of your full verification statements for the 2017 general election count, including

(i) for each polling district separately, (a) the number of electors; and (b) the verified number of ballots
(ii) for postal votes,
(a) total postal ballots issued; and
(b) total postal ballots received

2. The same information as in 1), but for the 2015 general election

3. The same information as in 1), but for the 2016 EU referendum
(Note: Some of you sent us this information for the 2016 referendum in response to our survey last year seeking other referendum voting details; if you are one of the authorities who already sent us this, there is no need to send it again, please simply confirm this has already been sent).

4. Please also let us know if the boundaries of any polling districts have changed between the 2015 general election and the 2017 general election. If so, please indicate which polling districts were affected and when the change took effect

Summary of response

1. For each of your constituencies, a copy of your full verification statements for the 2017 general election count, including

(i) for each polling district separately,
(a) the number of electors; and
(b) the verified number of ballots –
This information is not recorded

(ii) for postal votes,
(a) total postal ballots issued; and
(b) total postal ballots received –
This information is not recorded

2. The same information as in 1), but for the 2015 general election –
This information is not recorded

3. The same information as in 1), but for the 2016 EU referendum –
This information is not recorded

(Note: Some of you sent us this information for the 2016 referendum in response to our survey last year seeking other referendum voting details; if you are one of the authorities who already sent us this, there is no need to send it again, please simply confirm this has already been sent).

4. Please also let us know if the boundaries of any polling districts have changed between the 2015 general election and the 2017 general election. If so, please indicate which polling districts were affected and when the change took effect –
This information is not recorded.

Date responded: 27 July 2017″

http://eastdevon.gov.uk/access-to-information/freedom-of-information/freedom-of-information-published-requests/

Electoral Officers might – one day in the distant future – be fully accountable

The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill is slowly (very, very slowly) wending its way through parliament and, as the title suggests, hopes to extend the reach of the FOI Act. The Statement of Purpose (in full here) sums up the aims:

‘The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill will seek to make housing associations, local safeguarding children boards, Electoral Registration Officers, Returning Officers and the Housing Ombudsman public authorities for the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, whilst making information held by persons contracting with public authorities subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000…’

See:
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/freedomofinformationextension.html

for the very, very, very slow timetable.

Make sure you are registered to vote says EDDC Electoral Registration Officer

And will those who don’t return their forms be canvassed for follow-up? Your guess as good as Owl’s since Mr Williams believes it isn’t necessary to follow up and told a parliamentary committee that phone calls (how you get the phone number is a mystery) will suffice:

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/political-and-constitutional-reform-committee/voter-engagement-in-the-uk/oral/14118.html

“East Devon residents will soon receive a form asking them to check whether the information that appears on the electoral register about their address is correct.

East Devon District Council is asking residents in East Devon to look out for the form in the post and to make sure that they respond as soon as possible.

The aim of the form is to make sure that the electoral register is up to date and to identify any residents who are not registered so that they can be encouraged to do so.

Being registered to vote gives you the right to vote in elections and can also improve your credit rating

Mark Williams, Electoral Registration Officer at East Devon said: “It’s really important that residents respond as soon as possible, so we can make sure we have the right details on the electoral register for every address in East Devon. Simply check the form when it arrives and respond as soon as you can.”

If you’re not currently registered, your name will not appear on the form. However if you decide to apply to register, you will still need to complete the form and then send it back to us. The easiest way to get yourself registered is to go online to apply to register at

http://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

or we’ll send you information explaining how to do this in the post. You can also provide the information over the telephone.

It’s particularly important that anyone who has moved address recently looks out for the form and checks whether they are registered.

Research by the independent Electoral Commission indicates that recent home movers are far less likely to be registered than those that have lived at the same address for a long time. The research showed that across Great Britain, 94 % of people who have been at their property for more than sixteen years will be registered compared to 40% of people who have lived at an address for less than one year.

Any residents who have any questions can contact the registration team on 01395 517402 or electoralservices@eastdevon.gov.uk”

http://www.devonlive.com/residents-in-east-devon-urged-not-to-miss-important-voter-registration-information-in-the-post/story-30463309-detail/story.html

Who exactly does EDDC Leader Diviani represent? And who does he consult?

Questions at last night’s Full Council meeting at Knowle shed some light on this. Members of the public pointed out that Councillor Paul Diviani had voted against both his own EDDC council and public opinion, at Devon County Council just two days previously (25th July), by supporting the decision that ‘Your Future Care’ should not be referred to the Secretary of State.

The EDDC Leader’s vote on this occasion could be regarded as crucial, as the decision had been narrowly carried by 7 votes to 6, and was met by cries of “Shame on You” from the public, as reported on BBC Spotlight tv the same evening.

Last night at Knowle, Councillor Diviani replied that he had to vote the way he had at the DCC Health and Adult Care Scrutiny Committee because he was representing the views of the eight Devon District Councils. But when Cllr Roger Giles, Chair of EDDC Scrutiny Committe, then asked him if he had consulted Mid Devon, North Devon, South Hams, Teignbridge, Torridge and West Devon, the answer was no.

So is the oft-repeated phrase from Cllr Diviani and close colleagues, “We are where we are” , the consequence of poor leadership? Fortunately in democratic Britain, our leaders are not permanent fixtures.

Footnote: For reference, one of the questions asked last night, is copied below. All can be heard on the audio recording of the Full Council meeting, soon to be available on the EDDC website.

‘At the 17th May 2017 EDDC Full Council meeting, Councillor Mike Allen said, and the council formally agreed, that care in the community had not yet been proven to work.

Yesterday (25th July 2017), the EDDC Leader voted at Devon County Council Health and Adult Welfare Scrutiny Committee that ‘Your Future Care’ proposals be NOT referred to the Secretary of State. (This decision was made by 7 votes to 6).

Through the Chair, will Councillor Diviani kindly explain how voting against his own Council fits with his leadership of it? ‘

Tories being formally investigated by police for election offences

“Labour MP Wayne David revealed in Parliament this week that the police are “formally considering” investigating the Conservative Party’s 2017 election campaign for illegal activities following a Channel 4 investigation:

Mr David said the Electoral Commission had written to him confirming the police were “formally considering the allegations”.

An undercover investigation by C4 News, broadcast last month, claimed call centre workers may have been carrying out paid canvassing, banned under electoral law, as they promoted key Conservative messages to undecided voters in the weeks before the election. [BBC]
Channel 4 first aired the results of its investigations in June, which included an undercover reporter working at the call centre in question:

The Conservative Party contracted a secretive call centre during the election campaign which may have broken data protection and election laws, a Channel 4 News investigation has found…

These allegations include:

Paid canvassing on behalf of Conservative election candidates – banned under election law.

Political cold calling to prohibited [i.e. TPS registered] numbers
Misleading calls claiming to be from an ‘independent market research company’ which does not apparently exist.

Investigations into the Conservative Party’s 2015 general election campaign found repeated law-breaking, resulting in a record-breaking fine. In addition, a Conservative MP and two senior officials are currently being prosecuted for allegedly breaking the law.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150845/police-considering-allegations-conservative-2017-campaign/

Voting processes need tightening (and scrutiny) urgently

Why shouldn’t our council’s Scrutiny Committee check in its Electoral and Returning Officer’s procedures – even if the Monitoring Officer doesn’t like the idea because it MIGHT be considered political (by him)? A clean bill of health would reassure voters surely?

“The list of Brexit campaigners done for breaking the rules is getting lengthy.

Following the record £12,000 fine for breaches of spending rules, the pair of £1,000 fines for other offences, the company fined £50,000 for illegal text messages and the 11 anti-EU campaign groups struck off for breaking referendum rules, there’s now another £1,500 fine on a different Brexit campaigner:

The Electoral Commission has fined Mr Henry Meakin, a registered campaigner in the EU referendum, £1,500 for failing to submit his spending return on time. It is an offence not to deliver a spending return by the due date.

Though Mr Meakin reported spending of £37,000 in the campaign, the return was received more than 5 months late.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150816/henry-meakin-european-referendum-fine/

“Electoral fraud is an affront to democracy. Those who commit it should be sent to prison” says Daily Telegraph

“The voting system in Britain has been heavily reliant on trust ever since an equal franchise was extended to women in 1928 and the voting age was lowered to 18 in 1969. No one is checked or required to present identity documents. Postal votes are available, which can lead to people being pressed to back particular candidates. And proxy votes can be cast in one constituency without proper controls over whether the same person has voted in another.

In Northern Ireland, intimidation of voters was an issue during the Troubles and, latterly, postal vote fraud has been identified in some constituencies with large south Asian populations. In much of the country, however, this phenomenon has been largely absent and has probably had little influence on election outcomes. …”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2017/07/18/electoral-fraud-affront-democracy-commit-should-sent-prison/

EDDC: (second) postal votes fiasco WILL be scrutinised

“East Devon District Council’s chief executive will be asked to include an explanation of how 9,000 postal votes were sent out without an official security mark ahead of June’s General Election,

The postal vote pack sent out on May 25 to 9,000 voters by the Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Mark Williams, who is also the council’s chief executive, contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

East Devon District Council were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mr Williams issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.

The council’s ruling cabinet committee voted on Thursday to agree with the council’s scrutiny committee that his forthcoming report to Cabinet on his two priority areas after the Parliamentary Election must include the explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

Paul Arnott, the chairman of the East Devon Alliance, had previously raised concerns about the fact that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate what he called the postal voting ‘cock-up’.

He was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission. He queried this and was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.

He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.

Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.

“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they are saying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.

“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.

“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.

“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.

“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.

“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.

“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”

In response, Mr Arnott said: “The independents who campaign under the protective umbrella of the East Devon Alliance have both a right and a civic duty in the public interest to ask questions about this matter without fear of partial criticism from the council’s legal chief.

“Nothing is more serious than questionable practices in a general election, and Mr Gordon Lennox’s boss, Mark Williams, has had since June 6 to the present day to simply explain why he printed the postal ballot papers sent out with no watermark or QR code himself and did not commission them from a professional printers. He has disdained to give a much-needed open answer and his team have focussed on giving reasons why he shouldn’t have to be questioned about it at Scrutiny. Why?

“Mr Gordon Lennox’s time would be better spent persuading his employer to answer councillors about their election concerns than taking swats at me. I am a volunteer while he and his boss are both handsomely paid by council tax payers.

“This matter, and the arrogant manner in which it continues to be dealt with is the essence of why the East Devon Alliance had to be constituted. When we say this issue is not political, what we mean is that Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Independents alike at EDDC should all be equally alarmed about yet another badly-run election paid for by local people. If they aren’t, they should be.”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-chief-executive-will-be-asked-to-explain-postal-vote-error/story-30443902-detail/story.html

EDDC officer accuses East Devon Alliance chairman of “point scoring” over (second) postal vote cockup

Owl says: if the point IS scored, surely that speaks for itself! And anyone reading this supposedly “neutral” officer’s report is bound to wonder if it is, er, political!

“East Devon District Council’s monitoring officer has accused the chairman of the East Devon Alliance of political point-scoring after he raised concerns that the council’s scrutiny committee were not able to investigate a postal vote ‘cock-up’ ahead of the General Election.

Packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper were issued to more than 9,000 voters in the constituency.

East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers but Mark Williams, the council’s returning officer, issued a statement reassuring voters that no postal votes had been affected as a result of the error.

The ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election and asked the council’s scrutiny committee at their last meeting in June to interrogate the reasons why 9,000 unmarked Parliamentary ballot papers were issued to postal voters.

But in response, he was told that the current legal assessment is that the remit of the Scrutiny Committee does not extend to Parliamentary elections, which is the remit of the Electoral Commission.

Mr Arnott queried this advice with the Electoral Commission, and says he was told that there is nothing laid down about where electoral matters can or can’t be discussed within the framework of local authority governance, and ultimately it is up to the Council and its operation of its scrutiny function as to whether any or all elections or electoral related matters are included in that scrutiny.

He has written to the council, asking them to take on board this advice and for scrutiny to investigate the matter, but in response, Henry Gordon Lennox, the Strategic Lead (Governance and Licensing) and Monitoring Officer of East Devon District Council, said that Mr Arnott had misinterpreted the advice he had been given and said that his query was ‘politically driven’.

The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

Mr Gordon Lennox in a statement said: “In my view, Mr Arnott has misinterpreted the advice from the Electoral Commission, who said that there were no legislative provisions dealing with the role of Scrutiny and elections and therefore it is down to the rules of each authority that will dictate whether or not there is a role for Scrutiny.

“Mr Arnott has taken this to say that the Council’s Scrutiny Committee should be reviewing the conduct of elections. However, what they aresaying, and it is my view too, is that effectively it is the Council’s Constitution and the Terms of Reference of the Scrutiny Committee that determine whether they can consider elections or electoral related matters.

“In general terms the role of Scrutiny is to review the actions relating to the various functions of the Council (in whatever form that takes). The role of Returning Officer is not part of the Council, save for the elections relating to towns and parishes and the district. It is for this reason that the Scrutiny Committee do not have the authority to consider the actions and conduct of the Acting Returning Officer / Deputy Returning Officer in the Parliamentary / County elections respectively.

“I think it important to also address the political side of this. I note that Mr Arnott says this is not political. However, Mr Arnott refers to the East Devon Alliance (EDA) report submitted to East Devon District Council following the May 2015 elections.

“Mr Arnott was at the time the Chair of the EDA and therefore a part of the Executive Committee who produced and submitted the report. At the County elections, Mr Arnott was an appointed election agent for the EDA.

“In the correspondence arising out of the postal vote issue during the Parliamentary election, Mr Arnott, when officially signing off his emails, referred to himself as the Chairman and Nominating Officer of the EDA.

“So my perception, notwithstanding what Mr Arnott says, is that his query is politically driven. To that end, the role of Scrutiny is supposed to be apolitical and I would be concerned that even if it were permissible for Scrutiny to be considering this matter, that the purpose for them so doing would be questionable.

“I have explained this matter in some detail in order to ensure that the correct context is understood and to give clarity on the issue. I would further confirm that, despite the above, it is my understanding that the Returning Officer will be presenting a report to Scrutiny at its next meeting on the key priorities he is working on, following what will now be the standard practice of a review process taking place after each election.”

The scrutiny committee have recommended to the council’s ruling Cabinet that the Chief Executive’s pending report on the election does includes explanation of the postal vote issue of May 25 that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

East Devon District Council’s Cabinet committee will consider the recommendation on Thursday, July 13.”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-alliance-chairman-accused-of-politically-driven-query-over-postal-vote-scrutiny-request/story-30434940-detail/story.html

DUP funding secrecy to be stopped – but not for massive Brexit loan

Owl says: Two parties working together, both using dirty money to buy votes and manipulate power – are East Devon Tory voters happy with this?

“When the law over political donations was overhauled (or rather, introduced – as it had previously been pretty much a secret free-for-all), an exception was made for Northern Ireland. The requirements for transparency of donations in the rest of the UK* was not applied to Northern Ireland as, still fresh from its years of bloody violence, it was felt by many that forcing political donors to be named was not yet appropriate.

That secrecy has, however, come under recent sustained criticism as it has opened up a loophole for secret donations to impact not only elections in Northern Ireland but also UK-wide contests. In particular, a secret £435,000 donation to the DUP went on campaigning in favour of Brexit across the whole UK.

Now, however, the government has announced that donations in Northern Ireland will be subject to the same transparency rules as in the rest of the UK.

One catch – up until now, the source of large secret donations has still had to be recorded even if not published. The government’s plan is for those records to remain secret despite the Electoral Commission’s calls for transparency over donations made in recent years too. So the full story of that £435,000 for the Brexit referendum may never be known.

* This transparency is not perfect, as continuing disputes over unincorporated associations in particular demonstrates, but it is pretty widespread.”

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150676/northern-ireland-political-donations-transparency/

Company Chairman stumps up cash when shareholders object to political donation

“After a shareholder revolt, the chairman of a City firm which made £25,000 worth of donations to Conservative candidates has agreed to reimburse the firm for the money given:

The chairman of City trading outfit NEX is paying back the £25,000 of shareholders funds the company donated to Tory election candidates in an attempt to keep out Remain backing Liberal Democrat MPs, including Sir Vince Cable.

Charles Gregson said he would refund the money from his own pocket following consultations with investors and governance groups…

NEX, run by former Tory Party Treasurer Michael Spencer, targeted seats where sitting Tories enjoyed narrow majorities over Liberal Democrat challengers, including Twickenham, which Sir Vince ultimately won back from the sitting Conservative MP Tania Mathias…

Pirc, which advises investors with billions of pounds under management, said it believed this to be an inappropriate use of shareholders cash in a critical report issued ahead of the company’s AGM.

[The Independent]

https://www.markpack.org.uk/150680/nex-conservative-party-donations/

Another Tory dirty trick during the general election campaign?

“The Conservative party allegedly operated a secret call centre during the election campaign that may have broken data protection and election laws, according to an investigation by Channel 4 News.

An undercover investigation by the programme has found that the party used a market research firm to make thousands of cold calls to voters in marginal seats in the weeks before the election.

Call centre employees working on behalf of the party used a script that appeared to canvass for support rather conduct market research. On the day of the election, call centre employees contacted voters to promote individual candidates, which may be a breach of electoral law, the investigation claimed.

At the start of the election campaign, the information commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, wrote to all the major political parties reminding them of the law around telephone calls and data protection. She said that calling voters to promote a political party was “direct marketing” and was regulated by law.

The government also announced during the campaign that it wanted to tighten up the laws on nuisance calls and a bill on the issue was included in the Queen’s speech.

The Channel 4 News investigation, which ran over several weeks, found that a team employed by the Conservatives rang voters from a call centre in Neath, south Wales.

Operating from a script, the staff carried out calls for “market research” and “polling”. Identifying likely Tory voters in marginal seats could be important for the get-out-the-vote operation on election day, and also enable a political party to better direct its canvassing operation.

On election day, undecided voters were told that “the election result in your marginal constituency is going to be very close between Theresa May’s Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour party”.

They were then asked:

“So does knowing that you live in a marginal constituency that will determine who is prime minister for the Brexit negotiations, does that make you a lot more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate or a little more likely to vote for Theresa May’s Conservative candidate, or are you still unsure, or does it not make a difference?”

At an earlier stage of the campaign, the call centre staff said they were calling from a company called Axe Research, which does not appear to exist. Under the Data Protection Act, callers must disclose who they are and how the data will be used.

Asked what Axe Research was, one supervisor told Channel 4 News: “It’s just the name we do these surveys under, basically. I did a Google search, nothing comes up. But as far as anyone’s concerned, yeah, we’re a legit independent market research company.”

A week before the election, the same call centre staff started saying they were calling on behalf of Theresa May’s Conservatives.

The Conservative party said the call centre was conducting market research on its behalf, and was not canvassing for votes. The call centre confirmed it was employed by the party, but denied canvassing on its behalf.

A Conservative spokesman said: “Political parties of all colours pay for market research and direct marketing calls. All the scripts supplied by the party for these calls are compliant with data protection and information law.”

Evidence obtained by Channel 4 News suggests that on the day of the election, staff called voters in 10 marginal seats, including Bridgend, Gower, Clwyd South and Wrexham.

According to the Representation of the People Act, it is illegal to employ someone “for payment or promise of payment as a canvasser for the purpose of promoting or procuring a candidate’s election”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/22/conservative-party-call-centre-may-have-broken-election-law

Plymouth sets up independently inquiry into voting problems

Owl says: chances of EDDC investigating its postal voting screw-up? Zero!

Plymouth City Council has set up an independent investigation over administrative issues in the lead-up to the general election earlier this month.

The investigation, which has been jointly commissioned with the Electoral Commission, was launched after problems emerged with the sending out of postal vote packs to people who had applied for them.

The Guardian reported that the loss of 1,500 postal voting packs was being blamed on a computer problem.

The council had already apologised after the final number of votes declared for the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency was incorrect. In that instance some 6,587 votes for Efford and Lipson were not included in the final declaration for the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency.

The investigation will be led by Dr Dave Smith, former chief executive of Sunderland City Council. Dr Smith sits on the Elections and Referendum Steering Group. He is also a non-executive board member for the Cabinet Office Electoral Registration Transformation Board and leads on elections and democracy for Solace.

His investigation will cover all issues relating to the election including:
The processes and controls around election planning.
The factors that led to postal voting packs not being received.
The sequence of events and consequences at each stage.
An assessment of the overall numbers of voters affected.
The approach, effectiveness and timeliness of remedial action taken to rectify the issue, once the council became aware of the scale of the problem.
The advice and guidance provided by the Electoral Commission regarding the council’s responsibilities, and their adopted method of resolving the issue.
The staffing and operation of the election call centre leading up to the day of the election, and on polling day itself.
The effectiveness of communications, and the way in which customer enquiries were dealt with.
Evidence of customer interactions including the outcomes and levels of satisfaction.
The general effectiveness of the elections and electoral registration function, including the capacity and capability of the team.
The robustness of systems and processes, with a particular focus on applications for, and distribution of postal votes.
Any other matters that might have influenced the elections process or response to the issues encountered.

Dr Smith will present the findings and recommendations from his investigation to a meeting of the full council “within the next few months”, Plymouth said.

The council has called on anyone who has further information or comments to provide this to the investigation through a portal that has been set up on its website. All information and comments submitted through the portal will go direct to Mr Smith.

See also: http://www.plymouth.gov.uk/electionreview

Council Leader Ian Bowyer said: “I am deeply concerned by the problems that have occurred with the administration of the General Election and want to be assured that we urgently get to the bottom of what happened and why. The Chief Executive and Acting Returning Officer announced at an early stage that a full and independent external investigation will be held, which is essential as we must ensure that these problems can never recur.

“I have asked that the investigation makes every effort to hear evidence from as many people in Plymouth as possible who have been affected by the problems. This way the investigators will be able to better understand the problems, how and why they happened and how many people were affected.”
Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough earlier this month called in the Association of Electoral Administrators to conduct an independent review of the Parliamentary election.

The council said this followed “adverse coverage in the media and also social media about the process of the election”.

Criticisms focused on: the issue of postal votes; individuals whose application to join the Electoral Register was awaiting determination; and voters who had been added to the Electoral Register after the issue of poll cards being able to vote in polling stations.”

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=31578%3Acity-council-sets-up-independent-inquiry-over-election-and-postal-vote-problems&catid=59&Itemid=27

EDDC and East Devon Alliance cited in Guardian postal vote cock-ups article

… In East Devon postal votes were sent out to voters without an official security mark. The acting returning officer for the East Devon constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week reassuring postal voters that if they had not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. “We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted,” William said.

Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, expressed his dismay at the situation, calling for the new government “to centrally digitise the issuing of ballot papers and remove the potential for fraud in all levels of elections”. …”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/08/plymouth-blames-loss-of-1500-postal-voting-packs-on-computer-problem

EDA could, of course, also have mentioned:

the lost 6,000 voters of 2015:
https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/07/07/the-missing-6000-voters-eddc-named-and-s/

which led to Electoral Officer EDDC CEO being summoned to Parliament to not-very-satisfactorily explain himself:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2014/11/15/the-missing-6000-voters-and-the-award-for-best-lame-excuse-goes-to-mark-williams/

AND the other mistakes that took place in 2015:

https://eastdevonwatch.org/2017/06/02/east-devon-alliance-hit-out-at-unforgivable-mistake-over-postal-voting-cock-up/

EDDC Scrutiny Committee – we await your input!

At least one local paper stands up for itself – but not here

“While taking Conservative cash to place the ad, The Blackpool Gazette ran a headline above it which read: Poverty-hit families are forced to rely on food bank handouts. And inside, the paper ran a special report detailing the impact of Conservative austerity on local families [as quoted below]:

Food bank Britain

Britain is hungry. The figures from the Trussell Trust, Britain’s largest network of food banks, reveal a staggering rise in emergency food dependency across the country. As shown below, food bank dependency was virtually a non-issue in 2008/9. But the number of emergency food supplies given out now essentially accounts for one in every 60 adults in the UK.”

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/06/07/one-defiant-local-paper-absolutely-shafted-theresa-may-final-day-campaign-image/

Even the Cabinet Office cocks up voting! Doesn’t auger well for Brexit legislation!

On Monday this week, just days before general election polling day, the government was forced to table a new set of rules for the general election after numerous errors in a key statutory instrument drawn up by the Cabinet Office came to light.

Both the original faulty and sudden replacement statutory instruments cover the costs Returning Officers can claim from central government for the running of the election in their constituencies. The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers’ Charges) (No. 2) Order 2017 replaces the previous legal order from 4 May because of problems with the ‘maximum recoverable amount’ (MRA) which the original legal order set for each constituency, limiting how much can be claimed.

As the Electoral Commission’s latest bulletin to Returning Officers explains, a new legal order has been required because:

This revision is to take account of a number of incorrect MRAs that came to light after Cabinet Office received a few enquiries from Returning Officers about their level of allocation. A full review of all the allocations for England, Scotland and Wales has identified that a mixture of erroneous and inconsistent data on combinations and polling station resource, added to some clerical errors in transposing numbers, has led to a number of the MRAs being incorrect.”

Or in other words, the Cabinet Office drew up a bit of legislation which was so full of errors that it had to be hurriedly replaced.

Hardly a good sign for how the vastly greater and more complicated reams of legislative changes required for Brexit will go.

http://www.markpack.org.uk/150331/parliamentary-elections-returning-officers-charges-order-2017/

Claire Wright: the one to watch, the one to vote for

“… Claire, who lives in Ottery St Mary, is currently an Ottery St Mary town councillor and is the Devon County Councillor for the Otter Valley ward. She did represent Ottery St Mary on East Devon District Council from May 2011 to 2015, when she stood down.

She says that she has been a campaigner from the start – her first campaign letter was written when she was just nine when she wrote to the Brazilian Embassy demanding that they stopped killing dolphins for the eyeballs.

She made a foray into public relations and started working for the NHS in 2000. She said: “I set up campaigns on stopping smoking, coughs and sneezes spread diseases (in case pandemic flu arrived in the UK) and while working at Devon County Council in 2007, I established a campaign to improve adults’ perceptions of young people – called ‘Don’t Judge Us Before You Know Us!’.”

She took a step into the world of politics in 2009 when there was ‘the threat’ of a Tesco store coming to Ottery St Mary. It mobilised her to join the Sustainable Ottery’s campaign against it and it was from there that she joined Ottery St Mary Town Council.

As a councillor, she battled to get funding for West Hill’s very first play park and helped to improve the broadband service in the area.

In May 2011, she stood for election to East Devon District Council, and managed to oust long-standing conservative leader of the council, Sara Randall Johnson in the process – her first political giant-killing.

She said: “As an EDDC councillor I focused on two main themes – encouraging more transparency and openness – and trying to save the district from a very real threat of over-development.”

In May 2013, she was elected to Devon County Council where she is a member of the health and wellbeing overview and scrutiny committee, and she retained her seat in May 2017 with a massive majority.

In May 2015, she stood in the parliamentary elections in East Devon, running against foreign office minister, Hugo Swire.

She came second with 13,140 votes and a 24 per cent share, polling the most votes of any Independent in the country since 2001, when Independent, Dr Richard Taylor won Wyre Forest.

Now, in 2017, she is standing again, and her ‘people power’ army have hit the streets.

She only stood after she managed to secure an “army” of helpers and a crowdfunding appeal raised over £12,000 in just four weeks: with 75 per cent of donations being in small amounts of £50 or under.

One of Claire’s team said: “Claire stood up to Hugo in 2015, and despite a brilliant campaign got knocked back down. Instead of accepting defeat, she used that experience as a platform from which to fight even harder for the people of East Devon. If you’d asked me when I moved down here in 1995 that my vote could make a difference in this safe rural Tory seat, I would have laughed.”

But now the team are quietly confident that the support they’re feeling on the streets will be translated into a massive vote this Thursday.

“One of my team was stopped in the street by a man waving my manifesto who wanted more information: he will be voting for me. Young people voting for the first time, older people who are worried about the dementia tax, doctors, teachers, mothers with young children, students, the unemployed, a whole range of professions, all are uniting in a shared desire for a passionate, caring, hardworking MP for East Devon.

“A Sidmouth woman marrying an Exmouth man took time out from her wedding day on Saturday to have her photo taken with one of my boards. All her family are voting for me this time’.”

Joshua and Jamie Anderson (aged 21 and 19 respectively) are from Exton on the river Exe. They said: “We would prefer to vote for our own parties, but having read Claire Wright’s manifesto, we are happy to put our preferences aside and vote for her. For too long, the Tories have treated East Devon as a safe seat and Mr Swire has been neglecting us – and getting away with it. Whatever party you belong to, we need to rally now behind Claire Wright, our only hope in East Devon.”

West Hill resident and Claire’s team member Lisa Simpson said: “I’ve been a Labour supporter since I was old enough to vote and never contemplated supporting another party, nor indeed tactical voting, but I was won over, not only by a realistic opportunity to unseat a Conservative MP but by Claire’s integrity and work ethic.”

Claire added: “There are disenchanted Conservatives, angry that their man, Hugo Swire, did not bother to attend hustings, showing their support. The local Green party is backing me all the way.

“But more importantly, people who’ve never voted before, young voters, people who abstained last time, are realising they can be part of a quiet revolution right here in Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth. We’re demonstrating a new way of doing politics that responds to local people and seeks consensus rather than confrontation.”

Claire has been endorsed by tactical voting sites Best for Britain and Tactical 2017 and even Booker prize-winning writer Hilary Mantel has endorsed her campaign, saying ‘she is local, energetic and knowledgeable… Claire Wright is the candidate who will speak up for Devon East.'”

http://www.devonlive.com/who-is-claire-wright-the-independent-candidate-who-could-win-in-the-east-devon-tory-heartland/story-30377481-detail/story.html

Postal vote cock-up entirely EDDC’s fault – postal ballot papers “could have been run off on a home printer”

“Postal votes sent out to voters in East Devon without an official security mark were printed by East Devon District Council, it has been confirmed.

The Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Constituency, Mark Williams, issued a statement earlier this week to reassure postal voters who have not yet returned their postal votes after the postal votes after packs that were issued on May 25 contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper.

It has now been confirmed that it was East Devon District Council who were responsible for printing the ballot papers.

Latcham Direct Limited, who are is a specialist digital print, direct mail production, print management, document management, and fulfilment operation, have been commissioned by EDDC for services that in their annual reports are for printing and for postage.

A spokesman for Latcham Direct said: “Latcham produced the postal vote statements and enclosed the matching BRE’s into outer envelopes keeping in strict sequential order, and returned back to East Devon.

“East Devon printed the ballot papers and hand enclosed them into the filled packs from Latcham Direct ready for distribution.”

It is believed that this means that it was East Devon District Council who were responsible for the mistake that has been put down to ‘human error’.

East Devon District Council were contacted for comment but a spokesman said that they did not wish to add anything further to the previous comments that they had issued.

A statement issued by Mr Williams had said: “It has come to my attention that the postal vote packs we issued on 25th May contained voting slips that did not have an official security mark visible on the front of the ballot paper. This has affected a total of 9,000 postal voters.

“I want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so. We have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted. I apologise for the error but want to reassure postal voters that they should still complete their postal voting statements and return their postal voting envelopes back to me for validating as part of the normal postal voting process.

“To be valid, a postal vote has to be accompanied by a valid postal voting statement containing the voters date of birth and signature. After these are checked, the envelope containing the postal voting slip is opened and the slip is put into a sealed ballot box where it is kept safe until the formal count. My postal vote opening teams will ensure that all validly completed postal votes are double checked so that they will go forward to the count along with all the other votes that will be cast on polling day itself.”

But calls have been made for Mr Williams to resign from his post after the ‘unforgiveable mistake’ and the chairman of the East Devon Alliance has said they are appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake after the ‘disaster’ of the 2015 elections, in which Parliamentary, District and Town council elections were all held on the same day.

The Electoral Commission have been informed of the postal voting error.

But the ‘cock-up’ has left Paul Arnott, chairman of the East Devon Alliance, furious, and said that he would have more confidence in a village raffle than in Mr Williams running the forthcoming election.

Mr Arnott said: “The East Devon Alliance is appalled that Mark Williams is even in his post to be able to commit this unforgivable mistake. In 2015, after the debacle of the elections for town, district and Parliament, we wrote a measured report, in which our concerns included his prematurely calling results at his chaotic count for district elections with no reference to candidates or agents even when majorities were easily within the need for a recount.

“As a result we are not confident that two current serving councillors were duly elected. He had no control over who was at the count itself, and we know about the 2015 disaster with the postal vote. All our concerns in 2015 were mirrored by a report from the Elecotral Commission.

“As a result, I was successful this year in demanding that the County Solicitor’s office and the Electoral Commission observed the County election last month. Under this level of scrutiny the conduct of the 2017 county election was unrecognisable from the disgrace of 2015.

“Now we are witnessing the final tragedy for democracy in East Devon because Mr Williams remains in position to make what must be his final mistake.

“How is the electorate meant to trust that he forgot to check before sending out no fewer than 9,000 postal votes that they did not bear any proper markings? It’s his job to check them and to have a commissioning relationship with the printers.

“How did these ballot papers, which frankly any of us could have run off from a home printer, ever get to be created? This must be the last election he ever runs and we will be issuing a report on this and take it to the highest level. The dog has eaten his homework for the last time.

“Meanwhile the only honourable act for Mr Williams himself is to resign from all future electoral activities, including voter registration, his laxity in which was condemned by a committee in Parliament. I never thought I would live to be a 55-year-old citizen of one of the most beautiful parts of the world and be unable to assure my children that they are able to trust the electoral processes here anymore than in some underfunded and unfortunate part of the developing world.”

A spokesman for East Devon District Council said that the mistake was ‘simply the result of human error for which we apologise’.

They added: “A total of 9,000 postal votes were involved but as we have outlined in our statement the issue has been remedied. We want to reassure those postal voters affected that if they have not yet returned their postal votes they should still do so as we have taken all the necessary steps to ensure the postal votes are valid and will be counted.”

A spokesman for the Electoral Commission said: “The Electoral Commission is aware of the issue surrounding postal ballot papers in East Devon which were issued without an official mark. We were contacted by the Acting Returning Officer and provided advice, and steps have been taken to ensure that these ballot papers will still be counted and nobody will be disenfranchised in the UK Parliamentary General Election.”

http://www.devonlive.com/east-devon-district-council-were-responsible-for-printing-faulty-ballot-papers/story-30374445-detail/story.html

“Devonshire Darling set to unseat ‘Dinosaur’ on the Jurassic Coast”?

“In the pretty Devon town of Ottery St Mary, home to the Weasleys and Samuel Taylor Coleridge, an electoral storm is brewing among the cream teas. Independent candidate Claire Wright may be about to wrest the seat from long-time Conservative MP Hugo Swire. And it’s all down to people power.

With 700 active supporters and 400 publicity boards across East Devon, and leaflets delivered to 45,000 homes, Claire is taking on the might of the Conservative party with the backing of literally thousands of local people. Her crowdfunding appeal has raised over £12,000 in just 4 weeks: with 75% of donations being in small amounts of £50 or under.

At the 2015 General Election, Claire gained 13,140 votes from a standing start, winning 24% of the vote. Since then, she has been re-elected as County Councillor for Ottery, with a stunning 76% of the vote on a high turnout. One of Claire’s team said “Claire stood up to Hugo in 2015, and despite a brilliant campaign got knocked back down. Instead of accepting defeat, she used that experience as a platform from which to fight even harder for the people of East Devon. If you’d asked me when I moved down here in 1995 that my vote could make a difference in this safe rural Tory seat, I would have laughed.” But now the team are quietly confident that the support they’re feeling on the streets will be translated into a massive vote this Thursday.

“It’s amazing” Claire said “after a recent hustings in Exmouth, people were queuing up to shake my hand, and telling me ‘you’re the only person who has bothered to try to win my vote’. One of my team was stopped in the street by a man waving my manifesto who wanted more information: he will be voting for me. Young people voting for the first time, older people who are worried about the dementia tax, doctors, teachers, mothers with young children, students, the unemployed, a whole range of professions, all are uniting in a shared desire for a passionate, caring, hardworking MP for East Devon.’

‘A Sidmouth woman marrying an Exmouth man took time out from her wedding day on Saturday to have her photo taken with one of my boards. All her family are voting for me this time’.

Joshua and Jamie Anderson (aged 21 and 19 respectively) are from Exton on the river Exe. They said “We would prefer to vote for our own parties, but having read Claire Wright’s manifesto, we are happy to put our preferences aside and vote for her. For too long, the Tories have treated East Devon as a safe seat and Mr Swire has been neglecting us – and getting away with it. Whatever party you belong to, we need to rally now behind Claire Wright, our only hope in East Devon.”

West Hill resident and Claire’s team member Lisa Simpson said “I’ve been a Labour supporter since I was old enough to vote and never contemplated supporting another party, nor indeed tactical voting, but I was won over, not only by a realistic opportunity to unseat a Conservative MP but by Claire’s integrity and work ethic.”

But it’s not only Labour and Lib Dem supporters who are putting up her posters “There are disenchanted Conservatives, angry that their man did not bother to attend hustings, showing their support. The local Green party is backing me all the way. But more importantly, people who’ve never voted before, young voters, people who abstained last time, are realising they can be part of a quiet revolution right here in Budleigh Salterton and Sidmouth. We’re demonstrating a new way of doing politics that responds to local people and seeks consensus rather than confrontation.”

Pollsters, bookies and tactical voting sites all agree that she’s offering a strong challenge. All the tactical voting sites endorse her: Best for Britain and Tactical 2017 see her as the best option to defeat the Conservative. Yougov polling shows Wright and Swire running neck and neck. And William Hill have been progressively shortening her odds over the last few weeks: she’s now at 3/1. Even Booker prize-winning writer Hilary Mantel has endorsed her campaign, saying ‘she is local, energetic and knowledgeable… Claire Wright is the candidate who will speak up for Devon East.’

The final word goes to a key member of Claire’s core team: “This campaign has been life-changing, energetic and electric. From the moment our voluntary core team was created and more than 500 people immediately offered to support Claire, it was clear that something extraordinary was taking place. Watching people rise up to support a person of genuine integrity, sincerity and morality through giving support, time and money, has been amazing and emotional. Democracy in its raw and rarest form is taking place right here in Devon and we are all a part of that story. The welfare of the people in this Constituency is finally being placed above the interest of the wealthy minority by a figure that people are willing to stand behind, protect and defend. But there is no aggression, no fear, no anger. What is taking place in East Devon is a considerate, positive and energetic revolution, with Claire Wright at the helm; our Devonshire darling”

Can that darling, the most successful genuine independent in the UK in the 2015 election secure a historical victory in 2017? With the right amount of local support: Yes she can!

As Margaret Mead put it: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has”.

Or as local boy Samuel Taylor Coleridge said “Nothing is so contagious as enthusiasm.”

Source: press release

Could Claire Wright become a king or queen maker if elected? Probably!

According to this poll if there is no overall control one Independent could indeed be one of the most powerful MPs in Westminster!

Do right, vote Wright!