“A number of postal ballot papers appear to have gone missing on their way to voters in Plymouth.
Royal Mail and the council’s electoral registration office are understood to be investigating after receiving several complaints.
The BBC are reporting an “unspecified number” of ballot papers have “gone astray”.”
“Calls have been made for East Devon District Council’s returning officer to resign from his post after a total of 9,000 postal votes were sent out without the correct security mark.
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.
A total of 9,000 postal voters were affected by the mistake, which has been put down to ‘human error’ and people are being reassured that little damage has been done.
But 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.
A statement issued by Mr Williams 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 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 Electoral 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.”
Following the 2015 elections, the East Devon Alliance raised concerns with Mark Williams about some aspects of the election that required immediate corrective action as part of their response to the East Devon District Council request for comments on the 2015 elections.
THE FULL RESPONSE THEY PROVIDED WAS
Comment 1 about issues during voting: Mark Williams (as the District RO) would not take responsibility for ensuring that EDA candidates and agents across the District could have access to apply seals to boxes and packages as they were taken from Polling Places and, after verification and separation of the national election papers, were transported to the Knowle for final counting. For all District election concerns about issues outside the East Devon constituency, MW referred the EDA to the RO’s for the other constituencies within East Devon District.
This led to a number of unsatisfactory standards in the District elections, specifically:
1.The ballot boxes used in that part of the East Devon District in the Tiverton and Honiton Constituency were not rigid boxes (flexible cloth), so an elector could reach to touch previously cast ballot papers. At least one of these ballot boxes was damaged so that previously cast ballot papers were in full view.
2.None of the flexible cloth boxes could be sealed with the EDA seals, which were purchased following MW’s email illustrating what was a suitable seal. This caused great confusion and distress to candidates and polling officers alike.
3.The EDDC District election unused ballot papers and other information from the Central Devon Constituency RO were returned in an unsealed clear plastic bag.
4.When the ballot first opened at 7am Colyton Polling Place did not allow for privacy in voting. At first, only open tables were provided.
5.Conservative election advertisements for the District were placed within the premises of Polling Places in Otterhead. There was disagreement and delay between the East Devon RO (MW) and the Tiverton & Honiton RO as to who should take action to deal with this.
6.The Presiding Officer in Feniton illegally prevented a number of voters from casting their District vote. MW blamed the illegal behaviour of this PO on poor training by the Tiverton & Honiton RO.
7.Polling Places in Seaton had hour-long queues of voters. Who was responsible for predicting the popularity of voting in this town?
8.A Liberal Democrat candidate was allowed to hand out an electioneering leaflet (it said “Vote Liberal” and had the candidate’s imprint on it) inside the Polling Place at Axminster. This was reported by EDA to the Presiding Officer but no action was taken to prevent it happening.
We believe that the RO for the District elections should have responsibility for ensuring the safe and secret transport of information from the casting of electors’ District votes to their receipt at the final count location (Knowle). We also believe that the RO for District elections should have overall responsibility for the satisfactory conduct of the whole District ballot.
Comment 2 about Candidates’ and Agents’ experiences at the District election count.
Whilst we acknowledge the difficulty of running three elections on the same day, we believe that there was sufficient notice and central government funding so that the organisation could have been much more effective. At our meeting on March 4th we signalled our concern about this, and were concerned that MW refused to consider providing separate ballot boxes for the district and parish elections. This mechanism would have done much to ensure the visible integrity of the counting process
“Bearing in mind that most of the EDA candidates had no previous experience as a candidate, we believe that more help should have been forthcoming from MW to ensure that their legal rights as candidates were not inhibited.
“Specifically:
1.There was no general briefing for candidates and their agents about the procedure that would be followed at the count
2.There was no check of who was allowed into the count. As a result, the room was very overcrowded and observers were inhibited from carrying out their function of observing the counting agents.
3.It is a requirement for the RO to provide facilities for Party agents to check that their seals on ballot boxes are unbroken. The arrangements for this were inadequate because the EDA agent was kept out of the area where the boxes were brought prior to opening them.
4.It is a requirement for the RO to share the verification results with candidates and/or their agents prior to proceeding to the count. This is the relevant statement in the EC instructions for ROs: “Any agent may make a copy of this, and indeed you should make available copies of this for the agents present once verification has been completed”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
5.It is a requirement that the RO should share with candidates and agents the reasons why he has decided to reject various ballot papers. This is the relevant instruction from the EC booklet on dealing with doubtful ballot papers: “When undertaking the adjudication of ballot papers it is important to ensure that the process is carried out in full view of all candidates and agents present at the count”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
6.The multi-member Ward ballot papers were sorted in different ways by different counting agents. There was no standard way of doing it. Observers watched as some agents were trying to sort ballot papers into piles based on all the possible permutations of voting. At this point the agents were very tired, so this was an enormous task for them and led to many challenges from observers. We recommend that a simpler standardised approach be taken to pre-sorting the ballot papers that requires decisions between at most three or four different piles on each sort.
7.The multi-member Wards were counted using the “grass skirt” method.
[For an explanation of the “grass skirt method” see here
Only one person was involved in preparing and counting the grass skirt, which is the most complex of the vote permutations, whereas other, simpler counts were always checked by at least one other person. The grass skirt was used extensively in the counts for some of the closest Ward results in the District.
8.It is a requirement for the RO to share the count results with candidates and/or their agents prior to announcing the result for their Ward. This is so that candidates can request a recount if the result is close. This is the relevant instruction in the EC instructions for ROs: “7.34 Once satisfied, you must advise candidates and election agents of the provisional result and you should seek their agreement on the announcement of the result. You should make clear that the candidates and agents are entitled to request a recount”. This was not done with EDA candidates/agents.
9.Many of the declared results for the District Council do not have a complete statement about the reasons for rejection of ballot papers as required by law. Given that candidates and agents were not made privy to the reasons for rejecting individual ballot papers during the count, this gives some cause for concern.
We understand that previous East Devon District elections have not been hugely competitive and this may have led to some casual practices in verification and counting of votes. However, publicity and debate prior to the 2015 elections should have led the RO to expect a high turnout and close results. Because of this we believe that the RO should have taken particular care to ensure that election law and the spirit of election law were more carefully followed.
A report from Elizabeth Gorst, the Electoral Commission representative for the 2015 elections, said:
Feedback for the attention of Mark Williams, Returning Officer:
1)You explained to me that postal vote identifiers were not checked for postal votes delivered to the count. You should ensure that you make provision to check 100% of postal vote identifiers, even for postal ballot papers being delivered last-minute to the count. A 100% check is now a legal requirement.
2)Some less experienced candidates and agents were not clear on the processes being followed to count the multi member wards – separation of block votes, grass skirts etc. At one point this resulted in a heated exchange between an observer and a non-supervisory member of count staff as to whether there was a better way to count the votes! We would recommend that you provide a written guide to attendees in advance of the event of the processes that will take place.
3)Some count staff themselves did not appear to be clear about the processes they had to follow and particularly in respect of the multi member count. For example I noted staff at the start of the count who were not familiar with extraction of block votes or the use of grass skirts and were initially looking puzzled/confused about the processes they were being asked to undertake. This in turn impacts on the confidence of observers. Additionally, as I raised with you, during verification there was a mixture of face up and face down verification being carried out. We would recommend that you review your provision of training to count staff. Also that written instructions are provided in advance of the event to all count staff.
4)You announced the start of each local government ward count (no PA system in place). It is also helpful if the ward name on the empty ballot box is positioned in such a way as to be visible to observers throughout the count. The same advice applies to verification.
5)When the ballot papers have been removed from a ballot box at verification or count stage, the empty box should be shown to agents and observers so that they can be satisfied that it is indeed empty.
6)A PA system should be in operation to ensure that all attendees at the count can clearly hear announcements
7)We recommend that you review your processes for stacking and signposting ballot papers on the individual counting tables. As an observer it was difficult to see what the various piles of ballot tables on the paper related to. Staff were also confused by moments about what ballot paper should go where. Sorting trays with labels would improve transparency and auditability.
8)We recommend that you develop a suite of paperwork for count staff and supervisors for recording counted votes. I noticed staff on count tables relying on A4 pads of paper to add up the total number of votes for each candidate.
9)Count staff seemed to be missing other stationery items – personal mobiles phones were being used as calculators and I noted staff working on grass skirts having to share pencils.
10) Because of space constraints there was at times insufficient room on the tables for ballot papers. Completed grass skirts and other items were having to be stored on the floor beneath the tables. Wider tables would have alleviated this to some degree, but we would recommend that the detail of the count processes you will undertake are considered at an early stage as part of the selection and layout of your venue.
11) I was not clear that candidates and agents were being consulted on provisional results before proceeding to a declaration. Our advice to Returning Officers is that ‘you should advise candidates and election agents of the provisional result and seek their agreement on the announcement of the result…… This process should be undertaken within the framework of maximum openness and transparency….. so that all candidates and agents can have confidence in the processes and the provisional result provided.
12) I was also not clear on the process for adjudication of doubtful ballot papers. Because there was no distinct tray on the counting tables for doubtful papers (see point 6), it wasn’t easy to see the audit trail of those papers and how they were being adjudicated on and who was carrying this out. I also couldn’t see that agents were being given the opportunity to review rejected ballot papers.
13) It may be that the points I mention in 11 and 12 were being undertaken, but because there was no PA system, I was unaware that candidates and agents were called by the Returning Officer to hear the provisional result and review the rejected ballot papers. Usually the candidates and agents are called over a PA system to receive the provisional results. This ensures that all those entitled to hear the provisional result are aware that the Returning Officer is ready with this information.
14) You mentioned to me the space constraints of the venue and your consideration of other venues. Certainly for the local government count, the number of observers present meant that it was impossible to move freely around the count tables and clearly observe the processes taking place. We would recommend that you consider venues other than the council offices for future counts – not only in terms of the number of observers, but also the number of count staff you require to conduct the count to your planned timescale.
15) Your actual count timings varied from the estimates you had announced. High turnout, three-way verification, the complexity of the multi-member local government counts, available staffing resource (determined by venue size) and the lesser ability of some count staff all impacted on this. You will have gathered some valuable experience on timing and we would recommend that for future elections you review the experience of 2015 and factors influencing the timing of the count in establishing your resource requirements. For future events, it could be worth making calculations of likely numbers of ballot papers to be processed and then producing a sample of mock ballot papers on which you carry out tests of your timings and processes
16) At the local government count on Friday morning, there was no control of admission to the count. Given that only certain individuals are permitted by law to attend the count, such controls need to be in place.
The news comes after it was revealed East Devon was chosen as one of eight UK constituencies to be monitored as part of an international mission to ensure elections are fair.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has announced that the constituency will be one of its target seats for the general election.
An Election Assessment Mission (EAM) will be conducted in the area from June 4 to 9 by Phillip Paulwell, an MP from Jamaica who will lead a team of Observers from the Commonwealth.
The Mission, which is being arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK) as it did in the 2015 and 2010 general elections, will also observe elections in seven other UK constituencies to oversee:
polling
counting
post-election complaints or appeals
The team will compromise of three parliamentarians and one election official from Tonga who will monitor Election Day procedures at polling stations, meet with candidates, returning officers, local officials, community groups and other relevant stakeholders in order to assess the conduct of the election.
“The Conservative candidate for South Thanet has been charged for alleged overspending in the 2015 general election campaign.
Craig Mackinlay, who is running again on 8 June, stands accused under the Representation of the People Act 1983, alongside his election agent Nathan Gray and party activist Marion Little.
The Conservative Party said the allegations were unfounded.
Other Tory candidates were investigated but no charges were brought.”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/02/craig-mackinlay-charged-over-tory-election-expenses
“Darren Hughes, deputy chief executive of the society which promotes electoral reform, said: ‘It is frankly astonishing that a fifth of Brits feel unable to vote for their first choice party this election.
‘That’s a huge proportion of people having to hold their nose and opt for a ‘lesser evil’ rather than who they actually support – and a significant and worrying rise on the last election.”
In addition to the omnishambles about postal vote mistakes (twice) we should not forget this, too:
“East Devon’s returning officer has defended the delays at the count for the General Election in Sidmouth.
In a statement given to the press Mark Williams said: “This the first time since 1979 that we have had three elections in one night. The reasons why the government stopped this was that in rural areas like East Devon means the sheer volume of ballot papers that are prepared for counting causes a huge volume of work.”
Earlier Mr Williams said his team was ready and said the count would conclude at 2.30am. …
http://www.devonlive.com/election-2015-east-devon-returning-officer/story-26463810-detail/story.html
Question: How come other rural areas didn’t have this problem?
AND remember Mr Williams is paid EXTRA for his election duties. Wonder how much extra and whether cock-ups mean a pay cut? We will never know, because the job is not covered by the Freedom off Information Act and EDDC refuses to tell us. AND the Returning Officer has a big budget but because of that Freedom of Information block, we are not allowed to know what it is and, crucially, what happens to any underspend.
However, we do know that the Sheffield returning officer refused his fee of £20,000 in 2015 and here is a list of what other election staff are paid:
“Fees
Election officials’ fees vary widely from constituency to constituency but might typically be:
Presiding officer: £250-£300;
Poll clerk: £115-£190;
Postal vote issuer: £8 per hour;
Postal vote opener: £9 per hour;
Count supervisor: £150 night shift;
Counting assistant: £12.50 per hour (plus £10 training fee).”
It happened in the 2015 election when the wrong voting instructions were sent out with postal votes:
and now it’s happening again this year – but worse and affecting many more people.
And in an election where a handful of votes might decide a winner between Swire and Claire Wright.
If Claire Wright is within 9,000 votes of Swire could she demand a rerun?
Our Returning Officer was called to Parliament to explain why he “lost” 6,000 voters too – saying he preferred to telephone them rather than sending canvassers into deepest, darkest East Devon:
We have identified most of those 6,000 missing voters – just in time for the coming elections
In 2015 he blamed his postal vote fiasco on “inexperienced staff”:
Being in charge of elections at EDDC means never having to say sorry and blaming your staff
What will it be this year?
Is it perhaps time for Mr Williams (EDDC CEO and Election Officer) to consider his position(s)?
THIS YEAR’S FIASCO AFFECTS 9,000 POSTAL VOTES
“A total of 9,000 postal voters in East Devon have been reassured after a mistake meant their slips did not have the correct security mark.
A statement has been issued today by the Acting Returning Officer for the East Devon Constituency (Mark Williams) to reassure postal voters who have not yet returned their postal votes.
He 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.”
There is a second issue of postal votes tomorrow (31st May) and all the postal voting slips will have the appropriate security mark. Similarly all ballot papers issued at the polling stations will have the necessary security mark.
The news comes after it was revealed East Devon was chosen as one of eight UK constituencies to be monitored as part of an international mission to ensure elections are fair.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has announced that the constituency will be one of its target seats for the general election.
An Election Assessment Mission (EAM) will be conducted in the area from June 4 to 9 by Phillip Paulwell, an MP from Jamaica who will lead a team of Observers from the Commonwealth.
The Mission, which is being arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK) as it did in the 2015 and 2010 general elections, will also observe elections in seven other UK constituencies to oversee:
polling
counting
post-election complaints or appeals
The team will compromise of three parliamentarians and one election official from Tonga who will monitor Election Day procedures at polling stations, meet with candidates, returning officers, local officials, community groups and other relevant stakeholders in order to assess the conduct of the election.”
Returning Officer Mark Williams, EDDC CEO must be delighted.
“An international mission to ensure elections are fair has chosen East Devon among eight UK constituencies to be monitored on June 8.
The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA) has announced that the constituency will be one of its target seats for the general election.
Tory Sir Hugo Swire is bidding to retain the seat – one of the safest in the county – and see off a challenge from popular local independent candidate Claire Wright.
Ms Wright, who finished second in 2015, has been selected by a tactical voting website as the best option for non Tories to topple the long-serving former cabinet minister, the only independent to receive such an endorsement.
An Election Assessment Mission (EAM) will be conducted in the area from June 4 to 9 by Phillip Paulwell, an MP from Jamaica who will lead a team of Observers from the Commonwealth.
The Mission, which is being arranged by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch (CPA UK) as it did in the 2015 and 2010 general elections, will also observe elections in seven other UK constituencies to oversee:
polling
counting
post-election complaints or appeals
The team will compromise of three parliamentarians and one election official from Tonga who will monitor Election Day procedures at polling stations, meet with candidates, returning officers, local officials, community groups and other relevant stakeholders in order to assess the conduct of the election.
Head of Mission Sebastian Pillay an MP from the Seychelles, said: “Exercising the right to vote is a fundamental part of democracy.
“CPA UK’s Election Assessment Mission will seek to ensure the UK election process is legitimate and representative of the electorate.
“On behalf of the team, we look forward to engaging with the democratic process in the UK.”
Chief Executive of CPA UK, Andrew Tuggey added: “This third UK Election Assessment Mission is a vital element of CPA UK’s commitment to enhance openness and transparency in parliamentary democracy across the Commonwealth. Assessing elections upholds the core values of the Commonwealth.
The following will observe events in East Devon:
Phillip Paulwell CD MP (lead observer) – Jamaica
-Hon. Yvette D’ath MP – Australia
-Hon. Ichungw’ah Antony Kimani MP – Kenya
-Rt Hon. Lord Dalgety QC – Tonga”
REGISTER TO VOTE BY 22 MAY IN GENERAL ELECTION
Anyone planning to vote in June’s general election who isn’t yet on the electoral roll has only until Monday 22 May to register.
You’re eligible to vote in the 8 June general election if:
You’re a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen aged 18 or over who is currently living in the UK.
You’re a British citizen aged 18 or over who’s been registered to vote in the UK in the past 15 years.
However, simply being eligible to vote doesn’t mean you’re actually able to you have to register by
11.59pm on
Monday 22 May 2017
otherwise you won’t be able to vote in the general election.
In addition to giving you a vote, registering boosts your chances of getting credit, as lenders can use the electoral roll to check out potential borrowers. See our Credit Scores guide for more on this and other tips on how to boost your score.
How to register
Check if you’re registered to vote by getting in touch with your local authority. Enter your postcode on Gov.uk to find your local electoral registration office and contact it directly.
If you were registered for last June’s Brexit referendum or are for the local elections on Thursday 4 May this year, AND you still live at the same address, you should already be registered to vote but if not, you need to register by Monday 22 May.
If you’re not on the electoral roll, visit Gov.uk to register to vote in England, Scotland and Wales. Registering online takes about five minutes.
Or you can download a form to register by post, which you’ll need to send to your local electoral registration office, but make sure it arrives by 22 May.
To register in Northern Ireland, visit the Your Vote Matters website to download the form and return it to your local area electoral office.
Postal and proxy votes
If you’re already registered to vote in person and you wish to switch to a postal vote or a proxy vote (where a voter nominates a trusted person to cast a vote on their behalf) in time for the general election, there are separate deadlines for changing your voting method.
To switch to a postal vote, you’ll need to register by 5pm on Tuesday 23 May. If you’re opting for a proxy vote, the deadline is 5pm on Wednesday 31 May.
If you’re in England, Scotland or Wales, you can change your voting preferences by downloading a postal vote or proxy vote form from Gov.uk. To do this in Northern Ireland, different forms are required.
A thread on who might replace Agriculture Minister Angela Leadsom”
“He is my MP, he is a complete waste of space, has been no help to farmers that have gone to him for help over their BPS problems, just says he cant help, yet he is chair of the EFRA committee… so work that out!!
He only wants to know when it means he might get his pic in the local paper.
I know many people that are non farmers who have gone to him for help on various issues and he has just fobbed them off as well.
Also he is hell bent on direct subs going to be replaced by more complicated stewardship schemes that are both unworkable at farm level and impossible for the RPA to administer, he will be an utter disaster for the industry if he gets the job!”
https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/leadsom-for-the-chop.169380/
Neil Parish – Conservative
Described as “blustering” in a recent Private Eye. Pays much more attention to the north of his constituency (A303 widening enthusiast, farming) at the expense of the poorer, coastal southern end. Originally a Somerset farmer and former MEP.
Caroline Julia Kolek – Labour
Embattled former Mayor of Honiton, where the town council is involved in some sort of police investigation and where newspaper reports of allegations of bullying and harassment have been made. Teacher.
Matthew Wilson – Lib Dem
Describes himself as campaigner, entrepreneur and teacher “currently run companies that support businesses providing networks that allow them to access new markets and support public sector staff such as NHS works by providing them with retail discounts.”
Green – Gill Westcott
Leading light and green campaigner in Exeter and wider area Green and Transition Towns movement, economics graduate of Oxford and Cambridge, helped create “Exeter pound”. Has taught sustainability in schools and writes and gives talks on economics and sustainability.
http://www.devonlive.com/devon-general-election-candidates-2017/story-30327104-detail/story.html
Hhhmm – which one does land, sand and sea Tiverton and Honiton need? Farmer, teacher, entrepreneur or sustainability campaigner?
“When asked by YouGov whether they think different parties “often break the spending rules at elections”, 44% said this was the case for the Conservatives. Only 24% agreed this is true of Labour, 23% of Ukip and just 19% said it is true of the Lib Dems.
That might of course be related to the Conservatives having been on the receiving end of a record-breaking fine for breaking election expense rules on repeated occasions, after having repeatedly obstructed the regulator’s investigation.
Despite Theresa May’s recent claims in the media that the Conservatives properly reported all local expenditure at the last election, that’s not what the regulator found and published detailed evidence of – which is why the Electoral Commission said of the recent CPS decision, “The evaluation set out by the Crown Prosecution Service in today’s announcement is consistent with that of the Commission, which concluded that the Conservative party’s spending return was incomplete and inaccurate, as it contained spending that should have been included in the candidates’ returns.”
http://www.markpack.org.uk/149846/conservative-party-election-expenses/
Interesting collection standing for General Election in East Devon hoping to represent us.
THE FRONT RUNNERS
Hugo Swire: mostly absentee incumbent, spends large amounts of time on work with his Conservative Middle East Committee, lives (when not in London or travelling the Middle East) in Mid-Devon. Voted for Health and Social Care Act 2012 that broke up the NHS, knighted by old Etonian friend David Cameron, sacked soon after from his Foreign Office job by Theresa May. Famed for slurs on the less well off and being mischievously touched on the bottom by David Cameron at a State Dinner. Words (supportive) and actions (voting for cuts) at odds when it comes to the crunch on major issues affecting East Devon.
Claire Wright (Independent)
Was EDDC councillor for many years, instrumental in opening up the planning process for public scrutiny. DCC Councillor, recently re-elected in a landslide victory (c. 75% of the vote for the second consecutive time). Lives in Ottery St.Mary. Tireless campaigner for the NHS, schools and the environment. Her General Election result in 2015, was more than Labour and Lib Dem combined. A Google search (“Claire Wright” Devon) has well over 100 links about her campaigning on issues.
THE ALSO-RANS
Michael Van Davies (Independent)
Stood as Independent Candidate for MP for Barnsley Central in a 2011 By Election (despite living in Exmouth) and got 60 votes (0.2%). A Google search (“Michael Val Davies” OR “Michael Davies” Devon) pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues.
Alison Eden (Lib Dems)
Teignmouth Town Councillor, and TeignBridge District Councillor since a by-election in Sep 2016. Proposed by Eileen Wragg and some local Lib Dems
She is quoted as saying she wants to put Teignmouth high on the tourist map. (well that’s helpful for us in East Devon!!). A Google search (“Alison Eden” Devon) is pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues
Peter Faithfull (Independent)
EDDC Councillor since May 2015, Ottery St. Mary Town Councillor. Lives in Ottery. A Google search (“Peter Faithful” Devon) pretty devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues except his strong feelings against West Hill having its own parish council.
Brigitte Graham (UKIP)
A basket weaver lives in East Budleigh and stood unsuccessfully in Exmouth for the county earlier this month, got circa 800 votes, with 2,700-2,800 for the two Conservatives who won seats and around 2,200 for the Independent Ben Ingham. A Google search (“Brigitte Graham” Devon) is utterly devoid of any track record of campaigning on any issues local or national.
Jan Ross LAB. Lives in Exmouth and stood for DCC in Broadclyst Division in May 2017 DCC elections with c. 410 votes cf. c. 1,500 – 1,600 votes for the two Conservatives elected. According to the election notice, she doesn’t live in the constituency – officially her address is Central Devon – though her Labour Party page says she lives in Exmouth. A Google search (“Janet Ross” Devon) is utterly devoid of any track record of campaigning on issues.
So, who is going to get YOUR vote?
And remember Hugo Swire last time only got 47% of the votes cast.
And not those organised by matrons in nursing homes recently visited by MPs or picked up in bulk by dodgy political parties!
From Facebook page of a young voter:
“like this idea….from a friend. pass it on – we need to organise to get votes OUT
…. Listen, people need to realise whats happening. The tories are only winning seats by small margins. The tories are mobilising every vote they can. People need to start organising better. You can have up to 3 votes, your own vote and 2 proxy votes. So if your friends are away travelling, or ill or just had a baby, or away working… you can vote proxy for them……. I’m sure everyone on my friends list has got 2 friends who can’t get to a polling station _____—- Ask them if they want to give you their vote by proxy for the general election so that every single vote gets cast. Also, postal voting is good but people don’t sort it out in time, But …. You can arrange a proxy vote up to 5pm on election date if you’re too ill or have to work….. Get on it…..Deadline for arranging for general election is 31st May………… If you want to share this post, please copy and paste and don’t tag me in it. Thanks xxx
So, if this is being read by any of my friends who can’t vote for any reason, let me know and I’ll sort out the proxy thing. xx”
Special Q and A evening
Hosted by Claire Wright
Independent Parliamentary Candidate For East Devon
21 May 2017
7 pm – 9 pm
The Grapevine Brewhouse, 2 Victoria Road, Exmouth
From the blog of Peter Cleasby:
“Last week the Conservative Party – rebranded nationally as “Theresa May’s Team” – bought advertising space in a dozen local papers around the country to promote the Prime Minister’s general election campaign [1]. Nothing wrong in that in principle: it’s a long-standing habit of political parties to pay for advertising. The towns and cities in question appear to be Parliamentary seats which the Tories are targeting to win. So far, business much as usual.
The commentariat has tended to criticise the tactic as a way of getting around spending limits for constituency election campaigns. It’s a targeted national campaign which doesn’t mention the local candidates so it’s not local spending, and it’s all within Electoral Commission rules.
Frankly, that’s a second-order complaint. The Conservative Party is simply doing what any advertiser would do given the opportunity. If it’s an unintended loophole in the spending rules, it can be put right. Much more insidious, and an example of further erosion of any semblance of standards in corporate behaviour, is the way in which the newspapers allowed the ads to be designed and placed.
What the local papers did – or, probably more accurately, what they were told to do by their corporate owners – was to accept the advertisement in the form of a wrap-around, with each paper’s normal masthead integrated into the paid-for “front page”. In other words, a blatant attempt to mislead readers into thinking their local paper was supporting Mrs May’s election campaign.
Defenders of the scheme have argued that people would easily see that it was an advertisement. Really? Two points here. First, at least on the fake front page of the Exeter Express and Echo, the words “ADVERTISER’S ANNOUNCEMENT” are set in a white font on a pale grey background. This is invisible to anyone looking at the paper from a distance, on a newsstand for example.
Second, it’s not unheard of for national papers such as the Sun and the Daily Mail to trumpet their support for a political party as editorial matter on their front pages. If they can do it, why should people be surprised that the local papers are doing the same?
The advertising impact isn’t limited to people who buy the paper: indeed, they will soon discover the real front page inside and put Mrs May in the recycling. What the technique achieves is massive exposure of Mrs May’s slogans because the papers – typically weekly ones – are displayed on newsstands for a whole week. These stands are often to be found in prominent places in major retailers: in Exeter, Waitrose and Sainsbury’s have separate stands for the Echo in the entrance areas.
The edition of the Exeter paper that carried the fake front page also ran a leader article entitled “Delivering facts not fake news” [2]. The irony of this was lost on the paper’s editor. In response to my complaint to him about the fake front page, Mr Parker said:
“The material carried this week was part of a nationwide advertising initiative by the Conservative Party and the decision to publish it was made solely for business reasons as we are, after all, a business.
“It was made clear that this was an advertising arrangement with the Conservative party and is something we are at the moment exploring with other political parties.
“Again, any future decisions will be based on the commercial side of the business and will have absolutely no bearing on the way the Express and Echo covers editorially any news stories whether or not they are of a political nature.
“I cannot emphasise enough that we are a totally independent news operation and proud of that fact and will continue to be so.”
Taking advertisers’ money is one thing. Trying to mislead your readers – who may not be interested in the distinction between the commercial and editorial sides of the business – is quite another. And since the rules on political balance don’t apply to the press, we can assume that only those parties who can pay out hard cash for wrap-arounds will be included in the exploratory discussions Mr Parker refers to.
Up in Westmoreland, where the local paper also ran a fake front page, there is some community anger, threatening a boycott of the rag [3]. Something worth considering everywhere else, since even if local papers no longer care about their reputations, their owners do care about sales and profits.
Meanwhile Sainsbury’s, Waitrose and all other retailers giving prominence to local papers should move the newsstands carrying the fake front page to the nearest back room until normal service is resumed.”
NOTES
[1] For a list of papers and constituencies, see https://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/how-the-conservatives-are-using-local-adverts-to-get-around
[2] A longer version of the article is in the online version at http://www.devonlive.com/8203-in-an-age-of-fake-stories-we-always-provide-trusted-news/story-30314208-detail/story.
Whose betting on 9-15 June! With no prosecutions, of course, including our own Police and Crime Commissioner – “insufficient evidence”, “minor mistakes”, “must be more careful in future”, rhubarb, rhubarb, rhubarb:
“Today The Independent has the latest on when that CPS news will come:
If it decides to launch criminal proceedings, the investigation could have a dramatic impact on a snap election which was called by Theresa May last month when she was top of the polls.
A spokesman for the CPS told The Independent, “We have nothing to add to our previous position which is that we are working to various deadlines in late May and early June.”
The CPS is under pressure to make a decision due to legal time limits around when cases have to be brought over election-related wrongdoing.
Note that “late May” reference in particular. General election polling day is in June.
The fraud allegations centre on claims that the Conservatives evaded constituency election expense limits by wrongly declaring items as national expenditure (and so subject to another, more generous limit) rather than as local expenditure.
The Electoral Commission has already levied a record-breaking fine on the Conservative Party, in part for wrongly including in its national expenditure limit items which should have been included in the local expenses limit.
The Commission, however, does not, however, have enforcement powers over those local limits. Hence the additional police and CPS process looking at the Conservative MPs and officials responsible for the local expense returns. Whilst the Commission fined the Conservative Party, this second legal process, if it goes ahead, puts individuals in the legal firing line.”
http://www.markpack.org.uk/149737/cps-conservative-election-expenses-announcement-timing/
East Devon Watch 