A Closer Analysis of Postal Voting in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Wednesday, 2 May 2012 | No Comments

I have previously blogged that 41% of votes cast in the recent Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election were postal. This staggeringly high figure included all postal votes received, including those subsequently rejected. The reason we need to focus on total postal votes received as a percentage (of all votes cast), rather than the lesser percentage after correcting for rejects, is because the rejected figure is a subjective one. To explain, received postal votes and enclosures are checked and counted numerous times under dual control to verify the number of postal votes received - 956 in this case - were correct.  However, the 'rejected' count on the other hand, is arrived at through a process of subjective judgements, not necessarily conducted under dual control, and that is why the figure of 135 rejects is unreliable. As I'll explain, the already high reject rate of 14% (135/956) could well have been considerably higher if for instance a more stringent, professional judgement had been made on signature irregularities. Alarmed yet? You should be, because this raises serious doubts over the validity of Gullam Robbani's marginal win by only 43 votes.

I'm not unfamiliar with either the business process or technology of voter registration, including voting and signature recognition/verification systems. And that's why I wanted to see first hand, as an observer, how Tower Hamlets were managing the postal vote processing for the forthcoming 3 May elections. My observations also provide an insight into the reliability of the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election (reject) figures above.

Over a 2 day period I randomly observed the processing of 20 batches each of 50 Postal Vote Statements (PVS) at Tower Hamlets Town Hall. To explain, a PVS accompanies each ballot paper and is used to verify the authenticity of each postal vote by comparing address, date of birth and signature against details held on the electoral register. Each batch of 50 PVS's is fed into an automated recognition system and irregularities are highlighted on screen to be accepted or rejected by a council official. Approximately 50% of PVS result in some form of mismatch against the electoral register (47% in the sample I observed). Of these mismatches, approximately 10% are subsequently rejected by the council official (7% in the sample I observed). In summary, of the 1,000 PVS I observed, 35 or 3.5% were rejected. Significantly lower than the figures produced for the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election. I should add that in my opinion, a higher  percentage of signatures appeared fraudulent. The implication being that the Spitalfields figure of 14% was probably also too low. 

In conclusion, in light of the exceptionally high and unprecedented postal vote and rejection rate during the Spitalfields and Banglatown bi-election, there is ample justification for the Metropolitan Police to:

1. Interview each of the 956 constituents who submitted a postal vote to establish whether any were forced to vote under duress (a clear risk in postal voting). 

2. Examine each of the 135 rejected PVS and in the case of fraudulent signatures/submissions, prosecute as appropriate.

I should add that I have now written to Tower Hamlets' Metropolitan Police Commander twice on this issue but have so far received no response. None of our 2 local parliamentarians have shown the courage to comment on the issue.

Unless robust Police action is taken, and seen to have been taken, the very basis of our democratic electoral system will continue to be undermined.





Category: , , ,

Grave concerns over the electoral process in Tower Hamlets

Posted on | Tuesday, 24 April 2012 | No Comments



In a letter I received from the Department for Communities and Local Government dated 11 April, a spokesperson stated, ‘Ministers in this department certainly have grave concerns over the upkeep of the electoral roll in Tower Hamlets’. However they then proceeded to wash its hands of any responsibility stating, ‘Ministers hope that recent allegations will be taken seriously and appropriate action is taken by the Council, the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police’.

How then do we deal with the latest scenario affecting the bi-election in the Tower Hamlets Ward of Spitalfields and Banglatown?

The issue on this occasion focuses on the abuse of Postal Voting

On the day following the bi-election (Friday) I requested details of postal returns and was promised these would be emailed to me by the end of the day; unfortunately nothing arrived. It turns out all the departmental staff were told they could leave early (by 3:30pm) as they had worked so late to cover the bi-election the previous day. So be it - it meant I had to wait over the weekend before I could access the data available to the general public.

The Manager at Electoral Services finally returned my numerous telephone calls on Monday afternoon to say the information I requested would be emailed to me by 4pm that day. And here is the information I finally received:

Name of Candidate Number of Votes
BLAKE, Kirsty
Green Party 99

MACMILLAN, Richard Alan
Liberal Democrats 39

ROBBANI, Gulam
Independent 1,030 (Elected)

SMITH, Matthew James
Conservative Party 140

UDDIN, Ala
The Labour Party         987

Electorate: 7356  Ballot Papers Issued:  2,312 Turnout:  31.43  %

Number of envelopes returned (956) divided by number of postal votes issued and not cancelled (1418) = 67.42% return

Number of rejected envelopes (135) divided by number of envelopes returned (956) = 14.12% rejected.

Reasons for Rejections

No Signature 0
No Date of Birth 1
No Signature and No DOB 5
Signature No Match 72
DOB No Match 30
Signature and DOB No Match 17
Valid PVS - No BP 7
Ballot Paper - No PVS 3


My understanding of the process is that all votes – polled and posted – are scanned into the council’s files by the end of the polling day, albeit that is involves working into the early hours of the following day. Once scanned and counted the completed polling forms are held in a secure polling box. It’s unclear whether rejected voting papers are also retained.

With regards processing postal votes, they are opened and checked for completeness and accuracy; this includes the Voting Paper and Polling Vote Statement (PVS). Valid postal votes are then added to the polling station votes to be counted. Unfortunately no record is maintained of whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station – I believe this is a weakness. For example we have no record of the postal votes received for a particular candidate. Further we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate.

It’s disappointing that it takes so long to extract basic information from what, let’s face it, was a small bi-election with a small turnout. It’s also disappointing that we cannot scrutinise invalid submissions to establish which candidates they related to, or how many were rejected. This should surely be part of the due diligence embedded in the process.

Of greater concern than the reject rate of postal votes (14% compared to 0.7% for polling station votes) is the stark fact that 41% of votes cast were postal votes. That’s a huge percentage. We have to keep in mind that postal voting is stripped of the key controls administered by polling stations, e.g., there is no control to either prevent duress or enforce secrecy. Refer to Andrew Gilligan’s article; it provides potentially incriminating evidence, and sufficient grounds one would think, for a criminal investigation into the abuse of postal voting. Notwithstanding this, postal voting was essentially intended for those unable to get to the polling station. Are we to believe that 41% of those who voted in Spitalfields and Banglatown were unable to get to any of the three polling stations?!

The Electoral Commission does state that a person on the electoral roll does not need to state a reason for preferring to vote by post, however it goes on to say, voting by post is an easy and convenient way of voting ‘if you are unable to get to the polling station’. In my humble opinion this is a clear abuse of the postal voting facility.

As I mentioned earlier, no record is maintained to show whether a vote for a particular candidate is received by post or polling station. At this stage we don’t know how many of the 1,030 votes cast for Gulam Robbani were postal. This is important in light of the foregoing, i.e., the postal votes should roughly match the proportionality of the overall vote distribution.A significant deviation would be a Red Flag in anyone’s book. Further, we have no record of the rejected votes received for a particular candidate and the same argument applies.

I am assuming a ‘probe’ ordered by the Council's returning officer will scrutinise this data. However, to cover the unlikely possibility it doesn’t, I’m calling for it under a FoI request. I am also requesting appropriate action is taken by the Electoral Commission and (if appropriate) the police.



Category: , , , , ,

Tower Hamlets by-election. What happened to common sense?

Posted on | Sunday, 18 March 2012 | No Comments

It’s generally known that Tower Hamlets Labour Party has become an incubator for an Independent alliance of Lutfur Rahman supporters.
   
The most recent defections concern 5 Labour Councillors who voted against their party on electoral review, openly supporting the recommendations of Lutfur Rahman. That (Labour) Cllr’s can effectively revoke their duty and allegiance to a political Party, to join an alliance with, let’s be frank, an unknown agenda, will incline many to think twice before voting Labour, let alone Independent.

And this question of integrity – for that’s really what it come down to - goes further than Council elections. It has to be of grave concern to (potential) Labour voters in the forthcoming Mayoral election on 3 May, that Ken Livingstone publicly supported Lutfur Rahman’s 2010 challenge for Executive Mayor over his own party’s candidate. How can we trust Livingstone, or for that matter any Labour candidate running for the Spitalfields by-Election?

As for the by-election, there are further concerns on transparency and costs. In view of the imminent changes to Cllr numbers brought about by the electoral review, wouldn’t it relevant to the electorate to know that the candidate they may elect as a third replacement Cllr, may well be removed as a result of possible reduction in Cllr numbers; even the mayor is proposing they be reduced by 6. Could one of these be from the Spitalfields and Banglatown Ward? Save (our) money and wait for the result of the view, which will include Ward boundaries as well and Cllr numbers. The cost of replacing a Cllr who could be out of a job before he/she claims their first allowance is ludicrous. And lets inject some more rational advice into timing of the election. Regardless of the so called deadline for holding a by-election, common sense – rarely applied by bureaucrats – surely resolves that it will be vastly less expensive if would could combine the by-election with the 3 May Mayoral election.

It’s common sense - isn't it? just as knowing that today’s Labour Cllr may become tomorrows Independent..

Category: , ,

The Continuing Fight to Prevent Exemplar Destroying Spitalfields Architectural Heritage

Posted on | Thursday, 15 March 2012 | 2 Comments

Congratulations to the Spitalfields Community Group on their latest victory. However, what baffles me is that Tower Hamlets (TH) own Planning Department agreed to this development in the first place. I'm just wondering - are the employees at TH Planning Department, Tower Hamlets residents? If not, then I would suggest changes be made to ensure the core team be replaced with people who have an obvious empathy for our Borough and understand the cultural significance of its architectural heritage.

Here's the latest update from the Spitalfields Community Group and the Spitalfields Historic Building Trust, dated 15 March 2012 (they need more support from the local community):

Update about ‘PETITION AGAINST EXEMPLAR’S PLANS FOR THE FRUIT AND WOOL EXCHANGE, ERADICATION OF HISTORIC DORSET STREET, DEMOLITION OF THE GUN PUB and BARCLAYS BANK.’ on Change.org

Local community groups in Spitalfields, London, win first round in battle to save the heart and soul of one of London’s most evocative historic quarters.

Today the groups – the Spitalfields Community Group and the Spitalfields Historic Building Trust – announce their intention to commission an alternative scheme for the 9,000 square metre site of the London Fruit and Wool Exchange, Dorset Street and the White’s Row multi-storey car park – roughly the size of the pitch at Wembley Stadium.

All structures are within the Fournier St Conservation Area, none are individually listed (although the Exchange on Brushfield Street and the flanking Gun Public house and a bank are all fine 1920s structures) and all are owned by the City of London Corporation, which is working in collaboration with developers Exemplar – best known recently for their association with the large area of derelict land in Fitzrovia formed by the demolition of the Middlesex Hospital.
The developers proposal, primarily for offices and shops on the site but with no housing, and designed by architects, Bennetts Associates – was unanimously rejected last Tuesday by all five members of Tower Hamlets planning committee. The rejection was in the face of recommendation for approval from Tower Hamlets own planning department.

The councillors are to be highly commended for the wisdom and courage – and for heeding the voices of more than 500 local objectors and petitioners to the proposed scheme.
This rejection presents local groups with the opportunity to demonstrate how the site should be developed to respect the diverse architectural character of the area and to reinforce the rich mix of uses that give Spitalfields such distinction.

A visionary scheme is needed that builds on history to create a new development in the heart of Spitalfields – that will continue the social and commercial renaissance of the area and enhance the established architectural and social character of the conservation area.

The rejected scheme retained only the Brushfield Strret façade of the Fruit Exchange – the Gun pub, the bank, and Dorset Street – which originated in the late 1670s as a street of weavers’ houses – were obliterated. Significantly the developers proposed no housing element on site and doubts surrounded the amount of long-term and sustainable local employment the scheme would create wile removing a considerable number of existing jobs in the area.

Tower Hamlets refused the scheme planning permission specifically because of the loss of current employment on the site and the failure to provide specific details of future employment opportunities; the failure of the scheme to include residential accommodation as part of the range of uses; and because of the proposed demolition of the Gun Public House. In addition Cllr. Denise Jones stated that in any revised scheme the developers must consult in a meaningful and fruitful manner with the local community groups. This means no just going through the motions of listening but listening and responding. She also made it clear that the views of English Heritage must be responded to. Notably EH as urged the retention of historic Dorset Street, which the proposed scheme obliterates. Significantly Tower Hamlets conservation department’s analysis of earlier proposal for the site stressed the importance of retaining Dorset Street. Developments in conservation are meant to reflect, retain and enhance the established architectural and planning character. Naturally this means street pattern. It is incredible and virtually unprecedented for an historic street – albeit it now reduced to a service road – to be eradicated in a development in such an important conservation area.

In addition points raised by the three objectors who spoke at the meeting also need to be addressed.

Dan Cruickshank, who spoke on behalf of the Spitalfields Trust, condemned the bland and placeless nature of the rejected scheme that, he argued, does not respond to or enhance the special character of Spitalfields.. “A very significant fault is the failure to realise the opportunity – or even respect – the setting of Christ Church on Commercial Street – one of the most important 18th century Baroque buildings in Britain.’ What is NOT required ‘is the sort of dated, dead-hand architecture that the current scheme represents.”

John Nicolson, of the Spitalfields Community Group says: “The fact is that Exemplar has always refused to talk to us or the Trust about saving Dorset Street, preserving the old street pattern and breaking up the monolithic nature of the development.”

The community group scheme – to be unveiled in outline next week (and designed for the group by local architects, Johnston Architecture & Design, retains the Brushfield Street façade of the Fruit and Wool Exchange, the Gun Pub and bank, retains Dorset Street from which diagonal views of Christ Church will be gained (in the spirit of the Baroque plan of Rome. Arcades will be introduced along Brushfield Street and Commercial Street. Housing, studios and apartments will line Dorset Street and White’s Row with commercial elements at upper levels on each side of Dorset Street connected by elegant high level bridges and gantries of the type that service Wapping High Street and Shad Thames.

The alternative scheme doe not follow the developers brief because we believe that brief is wrong and will bring deadly gloom, not life, to the centre of Spitalfields. Our brief respects a reasonable balance of uses – housing, office and commercial – that will help in the remarkable social transformation that has taken place in Spitalfields to make it one of the most pleasant and most visited and vibrant places in London. The dominant office use proposed in the rejected scheme is wrong. There must be a significant housing element on site. Even Tower Hamlets planners – who supported the rejected proposal, admit that a scheme with such a high office content in an area ‘outside the agreed office zone’ is unusual.

Spitalfields is now characterised by its rich mix of uses and architecture, by people living and working in the area, and by diverse communities coexisting in productive and mutually beneficial harmony. We believe our scheme would reinforce these characteristics and – in its uses – generally benefit local employment.

Please continue to spread the word and encourage support – this planning application will go back into committee within the next few weeks.

Contact the Spitalfields Community Group here to show your support: http://j.mp/wGcMkK

Category: , , , , , ,

An Evening with the Spitalfields Community Group

Posted on | Friday, 2 March 2012 | No Comments

I was given the heads-up to attend the 1 March 2012 meeting of the Spitalfields Community Group as Rushanara Ali, MP for Tower Hamlets, was to attend.  It presented an opportunity to raise the issue of Brick Lane (sic) and other heritage concerns including the demolition threat to the Fruit and Wool Exchange.

The Community Group has a sincere enough aim - 'to promote and protect the rights and amenities of those who live or work in Spitalfields and/or own property in Spitalfields'. And it certainly can't be challenged in its ability to attract major political players. When Rushanara Ali finally arrived, she was greeted by fellow Labour Party faithfuls, John Biggs the London Assembly Member (City and East Constituency),  and Joshua Peck, Labour Group Leader at Tower Hamlets’ Council.  All in all, one would think, a suitably well qualified panel to hear our concerns and answer our questions. The panel was chaired by John Nicholson on behalf of the Community Group (although he introduced John Biggs as the Chair, Mr Nicholson – to the bafflement of John Biggs – actually chaired the meeting himself).

A suitably well qualified panel? I’m not so sure as while the assembly was kept waiting for the local MP to arrive I began to question the need for such an event in the first place. The fact that any community considers it necessary to form such a group must challenge the effectiveness of our current system of local government, which presupposes local Councillors will fulfil the functions such groups are set up to deal with. This thought further alarmed me when I realised there were no local Councillors on the panel.

The first couple of questions from the floor concerned licencing laws, substance abuse and law and order.  Clearly major concerns to the community and more pressing than my question about tarmac being laid in Brick Lane. 

Undaunted by my lesser issue, I took the floor next and asked the panel how we could best represent our concerns to Council when the panelists themselves are in opposition - at Local, Assembly and National level? How could they effectively represent us when the majority (Labour) party is considered the opposition and the Executive is one man, Lutfur Rahman, wielding autocratic power?  

I asked why there wasn't a local Councillor present, even if the remaining two local Councillors aren't obviously part of the Executive's sycophantic inner circle. After a puzzled look from the panelists someone pointed to a sheepish fellow in the back row who turned out to be Anwar Khan, Labour Councillor for Bow West. So, no show from either Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas, who holds the Chair at the Council's Development/Strategic Development Committee, or from the mysterious local Councillor Fozol Miah. 

Let me just spend a moment to highlight the significance of this. Of Spitalfields three absentee local Councillors, one is in jail for benefit fraud, one (Fozol Miah) has a 70% absentee record at Council with a 100% no show as a member on the all important Overview and Scrutiny Committee, and the third, Councillor Helal Uddin Abbas - the one sitting on probably the most relevant Committee, didn't see fit to attend. So the Group's representation channel through local Councillors would seem tenuous at best. But the problem runs deeper than this. The invited MP, Rushanara Ali, as a career politician has little time for representing local concerns. She is currently part of the shadow team for the Department for International Development and much of her time is spent shouldering this responsibility - although she did in fact find time to vote against her own party's anti-terrorism laws. Of the 4 Early Day Motions she participated in during 2011, one was related to Kenya, one Sudan and one Egypt.

It was very gracious of John Biggs to attend, but he also had little to contribute. The MP for her part, in one of the few exchanges with a resident, refuted she had ever seen correspondence sent to her from him - the Chairman of the Spitalfields Market group and continued to droll on in an acquired parliamentary style of humdrum platitudes offering no encouragement to the assembled audience. Only Joshua Peck provided any hope by stating the points he would follow-up.

By the time the session closed at 9pm, only Joshua Peck went away with a mission of sorts. Although John Nicholson attempted to create an awareness of the heritage issues in the Ward, it basically fell on deaf ears. I left feeling that little had been achieved on any front and that our dependence on the present system of democratic representation was no longer fit for purpose. If the Spitalfields Community Group is to achieve its admirable aims, I would humbly suggest it focuses on using e-Petitioning in the interim, rather than lobby career politicians with their concerns – at least until a more effective and reliable system of local government can be delivered.

Category: , , , ,

Search This Blog

Categories

Grenville Mills