There is wall to wall coverage on the internet today about the fact that members of my CLP are calling for an investigation into procedural aspects of the recent Parliamentary selection.
In normal circumstances, no-one would be interested. But the circumstances in Calder valley have been anything but normal in the past 12 months.
Some of the stories which have appeared are way off the mark - all correctly state that in the voting on the night of the hustings I won two-thirds of the vote. The hard fact is that even if I had won 100 per cent of the vote it still would not have been enough because it was the postal votes which won it.
Postal votes are on the media radar because of a furore over the selection in Erith and Thamesmead . And many in the Party are concerned at the fact they are open to abuse - and manipulation - everywhere.Let's not pretend otherwise
Let me make one thing clear. I did not , nor did anyone quoted in the story, approach the Yorkshire Post. Their enquiry was the result of a piece of correspondence from a Party member upset at the latest proceedings. I have no idea who.
When Chris McCafferty announced her decision to stand down two years ago , all any of us wanted was a similarly left-of-centre candidate with roots in the local community.
We did not want tabloid coverage and lurid stories dreamt up by those who had a problem with the chosen PPC. Those who, unfortunately, succeeded in forcing a second contest via poison pen letters to the NEC and an orchestrated media campaign. The tragedy in all this is that they were listened to by people who should have known better.
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
STORIES IN THE MEDIA.....
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Susan - do you and your 'supporters' genuinely believe this will help Labour retain Calder Valley? Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
The Party should investigate and if there is any evidence of dodgy postal vote engineering then the contest should be re-run.
We cannot always be the ones to let things lie for the sake of party unity - we end up like a doormat.
Janet would have been an excellent candidate, as would you Susan. We have to fight.
Sorry - that is rubbish - you may not have approached the Post yourself, but there is no way that: "Their enquiry was the result of a piece of correspondence from a Party member upset at the latest proceedings. I have no idea who.". Does Mr Clarke know? If not I apologise, but what Party member in their right (or should that be left) mind contacts that well known left wing (sic) Yorkshire Evening Post to vent thier spleen?!! As a journo - could you use your contacts to locate the source, in the interests of fairness as they are blatantly discrediting you and you may be nringing the party into disrepute?
"And many in the Party are concerned at the fact they are open to abuse - and manipulation - everywhere.Let's not pretend otherwise"
How? In what way? I'm not denying that you may be right but I am curious as to how any *one* candidate can manipulate a postal vote in a way that another cannot.
Just curious, is all.
I think leading figures in the Party ie Damian McBride, Jacqui Smith, have already brought it into disrepute, I think policies like the war in Iraq have dstroyed our credibility. All that hard-working activists in Calder Valley have done is express their disquiet with procedures which have led to us being in a very difficult situation. I think we are to be credited, not criticsed. Because we are standing up for Party democracy.
David - of course one candidate can manipulate the postal votes and the other not. Some candidates have too much integrity to fiddle the system, just as some MPs don't fleece the taxpayer claiming for second homes, when they live a short tube ride away.
It's about principle and integrity. Oh, and seeking postal votes as a candidate is against the rules as I understand them.
We all know that 2005 was a nightmare for postal vote Fraud with a Conservative being investigated for a massive fraud, MR X who we now know had votes registered to his home and an empty derelict house. Of course Postal votes are open to abuse on a large scale.
But real; postal votes are a great idea to help get people elected because to be honest I know many many people who cannot vote because of disability. elderly.
I think postal voting should only be given to people who cannot otherwise vote, if you can walk and talk you can bloody walk to a voting both. For nearly three elections I could not get into my voting both without having somebody carry me in.
But saying that I've been a target of postal voting fraud, on three occasions three different parties have offered to send for the postal voting paper for me, and then fill it in for me, if I voted for them, thats fraud.
But of course the winner never complains only the loser.
It has always been a fact that the person with the biggest team and the most money normal wins, end of story.
The postal vote thing can be procedurally nitpicked about for ever and a day, though clearly procedures have to be clarified for.
What I've always found most distasteful about the Calder Valley saga, though, is the initial whispering campaign against Janet once she'd won the selection fair and square. And the supine gutless behaviour of the NEC. It's pathetic, small-minded, parochial and cowardly bitchiness like that that is, precisely, why our party is so unpopular at the moment. And why it's so hard to get people to go out knocking up the vote.
I can understand how a *large-scale* postal vote can be rigged but here we are talking about a total electorate of, what, 200? 250? of which the post element is about half. Everyone knows the district and they know the names of the members. So I repeat my question, how does one set about compromising such a tiny postal vote? I am genuinely curious.
David - because the rules state that candidates shoudl not intervene in postal votes and members should only use them because they need to (not because they want). Therefore if some candidates follow the rules, any candidate that chooses not to (or where people don't on their behalf) is at an unfair advantage.
Thank you, Duncan, I think I get the idea, although I am not sure exactly what you mean by "intervene". Surely any candidate is entitled both to seek votes, and to encourage members to vote *in any way they see fit*, ballot box or post. Surely that is not 'intervening', is it?
Also, if a postal vote is very different in ratios to the hustings vote, surely that should be grounds enough to trigger an investigation?
As I say, I have no axe to grind being a pre-historic Thatcherite, but I am curious.
Candidates can seek votes. Should do. The rules actually make it pretty clear that the issue of postal votes should be entirely in the hands of the local party and have the candidates should have nothing to do with them (though that doesn't seem to be what happens). I agree with you that a very high percentage of postal votes should probably automatically trigger an investigation.
Susan, you will be interested in Tom Harris' rather different take on your situation - he won his candidacy in Glasgow Cathcart (now Glasgow South) precisely becuse he got loads of votes from ordinary party members who don't go out to meetings but voted by post.
http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2009/04/18/will-the-police-identify-the-ballot-fixer-at-labour-hq/
Tom attributes his success to actually going out and visiting members at home.
C'mon!
It's Labour!
Everyone knows they're corrupt.
Postal voting is just another Labour scam to skew the vote. Why are you surprised?
But then why would anyone in their right mind want to be IN the abjectly Corrupt Labour Party?
Post a Comment