Postal Votes Fiasco in the NW

and why the timing?

why not try this out on a placebo issue?


this is not democracy...

we have recieved ours in the North East...

But interestingly...
there is a witness form to fill out....

how does this validify the vote?
how is just a signiture trustworthy?
worth anything?

what is it supposed to prove...our signiture should be enough


or is it a device to make it difficult for
certain people to give up...

The UK is a pig-state

how do we know if our vote has even been received?
we all know what the post system is like.
Also the forms are complicated esp in NW where there are 2 elections.I came across an elderly neighbour who was nearly in tears because she didnt understand it
Ther is a very small diagram showing what to do but she told me she cant read very well
theres also a phone number but whats the guessing that it will be engaged all the time

one good thing I saw the labour party out in force looking very worried as usually there are loads of their stickers in windows but now there are only libdem ones and a few Respect ones
The reason there are no green ones is because they have not bothered to do any campaigning at all which is the reason why respect will be getting my vote

The SWP were called the Socialist Alliance last year, the 'Respect' party this year, what do you think the four of them will be called next? The Bandwagoners? It's just another load of rebranding to enable their paper selling crap

One of the many reasons why the anti GM campaign was so successful was that these people could not infiltrate small autonomous, non Hierachical groups and worm their way into officer positions - like they have done with other wholesome groups like CND and our town Against Racism.

we all know that their is more to life than voting every 4 years so get out there and 'do Summat'

Not all campaigning is visible Jan. The Greens actually knock on doors in target areas and talk to people. They have also done train station leafleting and outside screenings of the Day after Tomorrow film in city centres. Respect have done well with regards to city centre visibility, and posters up everywhere. Greens make a policy decision not to do this as it may be seen as litter and / or graffiti.

I think we'll have to sit back and wait for the results to come in, but in answer to another point, political parties have access to information on who has voted (but not who for). So if you haven't bothered yet or have chosen not to, then expect even more unwanted leaflets through your letterbox.

Not that I ever thought that there was much secrecy in the traditional method of voting - the fact that your ballot paper was numbered and was recorded next to your name by the tellers kind of dispells that myth. The last time I voted I challenged the tellers about this but they responded as you would expect them to. But the postal ballot so openly lacks any semblence of confidentiality with barcodes on every piece of paper that it is difficult to imagine that our voting records are not going to be kept by somebody.

Incidentally, I don't vote because I have any faith in what we laughingly term democracy. I make my occasional trip to the polling booth (or post box) simply to shut up the whingers who go on that if I don't take part I can't complain. This National Lottery 'you've got to be in it to win it' type reasoning really pisses me off. So by taking a walk every now and then I can eliminate that f*cking argument very simply.

As for the SWP's ever-changing brand identity, from what I understand there is a definite distance between the Socialist Alliance and Respect. At least supporters of the SA that I know have told me that there was a chilly relationship between the two.

And whilst I detest racism - I have heard people say that they are going to vote Labour to keep the BNP out. Ahem! Don't you think that you are being just a little bit naive! Sure, the BNP are nothing more than a bunch of ignorant thugs whose ineptitude almost outshines Respect. But whilst we are struggling against the brown-shirts the Nazis are already in power. Or are you still just looking at the pictures!

If Respect were really genuine about taking any kind of initiative, they would have bent over a bit further to align themselves with the Green Party. What we have instead is the two major parties claiming to be so radicallly different from each other, yet whose retoric is identical and a few other parties whose differences MUST be seen as trivial when the alternative is considered. I hope that when the results are announced and after a little mental arithmatic the Respect leadership (?) realises what a great opportunity has been squandered. The Greens and Respect should have had their collective heads banged together.

And while I think about it, having been to a number of Peoples' Assemly/Respect meetings, I don't remember there ever being any kind of democratic process to determine who sat on the top table! I only ever remembering thinking 'how the f*ck did you get there?'.

The Greens will be getting my vote. I don't have to disect their policies to know that they more closely represent what I believe in than any other party. And as much as I don't believe in 'democracy', whatever chance my vote has it should be for a party I would like to gain influence, not against one party to prevent another gaining power.

To be fair, Respect asked the Green Party to join right at the start, they said no. Then Respect offered an electoral pact, again the Greens said no. I can understand the Greens' point of view as they've been running on their own in elections for thirty years, fair play. But it hardly seems fair to blame Respect for the Greens' decision.

Yes, hack, I accept that. But my comment said:

"If Respect were really genuine about taking any kind of initiative, they would have bent over a bit further to align themselves with the Green Party."

That is, not just suggesting that they join. What an insult to a party which has been established and campaigning against war for 31 years.

Not just suggesting an electoral pact either. The Greens have been campaigning nationally on the same issues for a lot longer than Respect, so why should they drop out of areas which they have worked in for years.

No, I was referring to Respect bending over a bit further on policy. And given that their policies are based on the flimsiest of internal processes and that if the SWP's numbers were overlooked most people who opposed the war might find refuge in a Green vote it was entirely up to Respect to shift.

Personally, and speaking as a long time anti-racist, I might have more time for Respect if they did not overlook relevent issues by patronising the Muslim community. If the Muslims wanted a party which represented their views exclusively then surely it would be up to the MAB to facilitate this.

Again, referring to the Respect meetings I attended, there were motions passed which emotionally hijacked the whole agenda and made little sense. The motion that all election candidates should adopt an asylum seeking family was passes almost unchallenged not because it was a great idea and candidates would not have enough to do in the preceeding weeks to an election. No, the motion was passed because a delegate dragged an asylum seeker out in front of everybody and gave a tearful and emotive delivery just minutes before we were asked to vote on the issue. It goes without saying that anybody who thought a little deeper into this was emotionally blackmailed into voting for it. I abstained.

The same was almost true of the candidate selection. It was proposed by the commitee that 4 of the 9 should be from the ethnic community. Why, for f*ck's sake? If the population was 45% ethnic I would support this - but you cannot claim to be proportionally representative by massively overcompensating. Fortunately for their credibility this was defeated but was supported by all the aforementioned folk on the top table.

With one or two exceptions, I find most of the Respect leadership to be quite objectionable if not wholly imbibed with SWP doctrine. I feel that this, if anything, is the reason that the Greens would not entertain any pact.

I appreciate the strong feelings over this and I think that Zinfandel makes some good points. Something else that I heard was that the Greens also had to consider their wider vote and not just the anti-war movement.

The Greens got good support in 1999 and this was without a large anti-war vote. A lot of their supporters would be horrified by George Galloway and the SWP. There was a very practical consideration as to whether any alliance with Respect would be good for the Greens (it would definitely have been good for Respect's chances).

The Greens will have calculated that they could attract a lot of anti-war votes on their own, and retain their core environmental support who may have gone over to the Liberal Democrats if they felt the Greens had been "hijacked" by this new movement. Although Respect has a strong anti-war message, they are like UKIP, somewhat single issue. Galloway and Lavalette aside, they are also a bit thin on the ground in terms of elected representatives and local support.

Any future relationship between the Greens and Respect will have to be based on some sort of political reality. If the Green vote is 4 times greater than the Respect vote then Respect will have to accept this reality in any future co-operation. It is going to be a lot more difficult for Respect to build on this election than for the Greens. If the two are to work together, it will have to be based on a reflection of their respective support.

The Greens have previously done deals with Plaid Cymru and in the South West this year they have brokered agreements with Mebyon Kernow (Cornwall Party - lots of elected councillors) and the Gibralter Reform Party (left leaning). The problems with brokering a deal with Respect this time were that:

a) There was very little time as Respect was launched in January

b) George Galloway - he wanted to be top of any joint list in London. This meant asking a sitting Green MEP Jean Lambert, the equal of Caroline Lucas, to stand down in favour of Galloway when the Green vote in London had been 4 times greater than the Socialist (SLP) vote in 1999. Demanding that a Green MEP gives up her seat is not a good tactic to use at the start of negotiations. Nor is threatening the Greens that not agreeing to Respect's terms would be a "betrayal" (John Rees in Liverpool). If GG had come in as number 2 I think both would have got elected, but GG's ego demanded number 1 status.

c) In the other regions where discussions took place, Respect wanted "even number" candidates 2,4,6,8 on any joint list. The Greens had selected their candidates in summer 2003 and would have required a re-ballot of every regional member at a cost in terms of both time and money.

d) The name. Respect wanted Respect. The Greens would lose their single most powerful vote winner, their name and that trust in their environmental credentials. Now if Respect had come along with a proposal that they run under the name "Green Party" with a bracketed (Supported by Respect: the Unity Coalition) on the ballot paper, this might well have been very appealing to the Greens, as well as earning Respect a lot of political kudos by being prepared to support progressive candidates like Caroline Lucas.

e) Finally and crucially, the SWP. Like it or not, the SWP are now seen as political parasites. They were seen to infest and dominate the Socialist Alliance, and they have been seen to infest and dominate Respect. This perception of them has become their defining characteristic. They are seen to lever disproportionate control and to pursue their own agenda, not that of the wider movement. Any movement now seen to be controlled by the SWP is likely to find itself isolated, and it may be that other Socialist groups will have to consider this carefully.

What is the way forward? This is probably best left for another time but...

I think two regions are crucial.

London: If Galloway is elected, Respect will have a national profile. Respect will not need to work with the Greens, and Greens will not want to work with Respect if Galloway won his seat at Jean Lambert's expense. If Galloway is not elected, then both sides are likely to talk again (minus GG who will be talking to the SSP again about his working wage). This will take a lot longer to happen if a split anti-war vote has cost Jean Lambert her seat.

North West: The Greens have run a good (and justified) media campaign in the left wing press regarding tactical voting against the BNP. There are a lot of natural socialists who are steering clear of Respect and / or using their vote tactically to try and keep the BNP from getting Nick Griffin elected. If there is a noticeable swing from Respect to Green (compared to other regions) then it will be seen that there has been widespread tactical voting. If this keeps the BNP from winning a seat by getting the Greens elected, then there is a great deal to celebrate. There is a great deal of potential for the Greens/Respect to cooperate in challenging pro-war Labour MPs next year based on who is strongest in particular areas. For example, Lancaster Greens, Preston Respect.

And a final aside (this is way too long a comment) regarding ethnic representation:

The Greens have two party chairs who will probably be standing at the general election who are from ethnic minorities. As Zinfandel says, this is probably much more reflective of the wider population.

Khalid Hussenbux (Wirral Green Party)
Samir Chatterjee (Rochdale Green Party)

I think Pete has done a really good job at clarifying these tactical voting issues.

Whatever else happens after 10th June we do not want Nick Griffin MEP appearing on the Today programme every other day, while BBC journos treat him as a legitimate politician.

I also think Pete makes some interesting points about negotiations between the Greens and RESPECT. The Greens are a long established party, etc. etc.

However, it is also necessary to look at where the Greens are going. They never look like repeating their spectacular showing in the 1989 election (2,292,705 votes = 14.5 %)  http://www.europarl.org.uk/guide/Elections/elections1989.htm
They have made an impact, but it is hard to see how they can ever actually achieve the fundamental change in society that they desire. In practice - in Oxford City Council where they formed a coalition with the Lib Dems they allowed a load of Tory policies to go through.

So maybe, had they joined with RESPECT then it could have caught the imagination and together we could have made a breakthrough? The Greens have actually got enough members on the ground not to be rolled over by the SWP, so they have nothing to fear there. We could all have been stronger. Of course negeotiations could have been done better, etc, etc, but the Greens could have grasped the opportunity instead of putting out red-baiting press releases. these were a self fullfilling prophecy, had the Greens joined RESPECT then Monbiot would have stayed on board, and it would not have been, as the greens call it "an SWP front".

There is a case to answer by the greens that they put the interests of their organistaion before the interests of the environmental policies, or advance for ordinary working people (what would be called sectarianism if they were socialists).

Two examples:
i) The Greens are not calling for a second preference vote for Livingstone in London. Even though the real battle between Norris and Livingstone, and while Ken is not perfect Norris is much, much worse! Norris has policies that are pro-car and anti public transport, against the congestion charge, and against affordable housing. The greens had the opportunity to campaign for their own candidate and still say vote Livingstone t keep Norris out. Their failure to do is unprincipled sectarianism.

ii) In Swindon where I live, the Greens are standing a known right wing maverick who is not even a member of the Green party and does bugger all about anything, against a well known socialist candidate who is very active on environmental issues. When the two parties contested the same seat in a January by-election the Socialist Alliance got 9% and the Greens 3%. In the January election the Swindon Greens put out a leaflet claiming to be the “only party” to campaign on the environment! Their motivation seems that it is vital to get these extra 40 votes for the greens, even though it does nothing to build a joint campaign over environmental issues in the town.

I think the Greens need to recognise that they may be good in parts but they are not the dogs bollocks, and they are never going to break through unless they change their own mind-set, and start co-operating with the left and people of no party.

I welcome the fact that pete is so keen on debating these issues. There is hope after all!

I definitely want official dialogue after these elections, because politics for any party doesn't take place in a vacuum. We need to damage the New Labour majority at Westminster and we need to do it in a coherent and organised manner, without letting the Tories back into power. My way forward would be to target all pro-war Labour MPs with tough anti-war candidates in Labour / Lib Dem marginals. This might benefit the Lib Dems, but anything that hastens a reform of the First Past the Post system will improve UK politics.

The Greens are not the dogs bollix (unfortunately) but they are pretty good and I also think Respect has great potential. I just don't think that a marriage of convenience would have worked straight away. I hope for all our sakes that the consequences of both sides not doing this are bearable.

In opposing membership of the EU and seeing the threat of a single currency as the point of no return vis-a-vis a New World Order, electing representatives at the EU table is something of a curious excercise. But it may serve the purpose of the qualifying session in Formula 1 (I'm not really interested in this 'sport' so I had to go and find out what it is called), i.e. it will be a useful insight into what needs to be done to address the issue of safely removing the Blair government.

Of course it might seem relatively easy to either replace Blair with Brown or the Labour Party with the Tories, but it would serve little purpose. Having seen what might have been, I hope that Respect and the Green Party will put away their differences for the greater good. Although, perhaps the best we can hope for is a hung parliament, possibly having to horse-trade with the Lib-Dems. Sounds like a nightmare (NPI) but as somebody dissilusioned with the whole democratic process I think the resultant chaos would be just what we need in order to destabilise the established order.

 http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14302466%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=security%2dfailure%2din%2dlatest%2dpost%2dvote%2dfiasco-name_page.html

I'm not usually a big fan of the Daily Post, but the Truman Street dumping is significant. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

The Trueman St dumping is significant but I would be wary of believing it to be related to the party you are thinking of. It wouldn't make much sense now would it? More than likely it was either a disgruntled postman or the students themselves.

Postal voting as a whole:
As for the witnessing of ballot papers, it was the Lib Dems AND Tories who insisted on witnessing knowing full well that this was the main problem people faced in last year's pilots.

Postal voting is fine in my book - no more, or less, problematic than polling stations.

"They can find out who I vote for" is a regular cry but the same was true of polling stations. I have been around party offices for long enough to see that they they only get WHO has voted and not HOW people have voted.

And as for all this talk about "doing New Labour" etc, when are people going to get real. The ONLY hope of the left is the Labour Party. Yes it has different opinions within it, some that would seem abhorrent to ultra-lefties, but it has its head screwed on and doesn't dream of this stupid "working class revolution" idea that some pillocks believe in. Far better to deliver real changes for people (New Deal, Tax Credits, Sure Start etc) using the system that the MAJORITY of the country accepts rather than the immature posturing of so-called working-class heroes.
The biggest critics of the war on Iraq were the Labour Party themselves. Now that's tough politics - when you are blatantly disagreeing within the governing party rather than meekly accepting decisions. So why hasn't Blair gone - because in actual fact there is a lot more to running a country than just the war. Even though I don't particularly like him, he has done a pretty good job.
The ONLY hope of the left is the Labour Party. History has shown that extremism (in whatever form) is not accepted in this country.

Edseam, are you for real?

"The biggest critics of the war on Iraq were the Labour Party themselves" - if that's true, why did the spineless gits do nothing to stop it? Frightened of losing the whip, that's why!

"because in actual fact there is a lot more to running a country than just the war" - yes, thanks for reminding me how they have screwed plenty of other things up. Apart from which, I think the deaths of around 10,000 innocent civilians transcends most of the other crap that they have f*cked up. Or do you think that is an acceptable consequence of all the lying?!

"Postal voting is fine in my book - no more, or less, problematic than polling stations" - Yeah, I'm alright, Jack! Try putting yourself in somebody else's shoes. Isn't that a fundamental when it comes to socialist thinking? Or am I mistaking you for one of those new post-Thatcher socialists?

"I have been around party offices for long enough to see that they they only get WHO has voted and not HOW people have voted" - well you ought to open your eyes a little wider. Every ballot paper was numbered and the number was recorden next to the voter's name in the electoral register, right there in the polling station. I watched it happen time after time. Now barcode make the process of tracing votes much simpler.

With a heel-clicking attitude like that, you can only be a party member!

Or do you swallow everything?!

As someone involved in a campaign this time round, some more information from this afternoon. Marybone, the largest city centre hall for students in Liverpool, has not received postal ballots. In a four way marginal, Labour could lose seats to either the Greens, Liberal Democrats or Liverpool Labour (old Labour). 1 Tory + 1 Liberal candidate standing as well.

The Greens and Liverpool Labour leafleted this hall, the others did not. There are over 600 students registered to vote. About half would have been there last week when the ballots were supposed to arrive, and now only a quarter of them are still there (info from the front desk).

Cosmopolitan who run the hall are saying the Postal Ballots were distributed, but the students we have talked to have not received them. So far, students from other halls have made up over 10% of the voters, and Marybone itself could have been another 2 or 3% that would definitely not be voting for New Labour. We know that the official Labour candidates are worried because Labour leaflets are springing up in the reception areas of halls, but this kind of thing is an absolute disgrace. We are trying to get Postal Ballots resent out, but need to collect student details tomorrow to confirm this.

The SLP are still campaigning, interesting enough the BNP candidate Joey Owens emailed me on Friday 28th May, which I found amusing, telling me he's impressed with our leaflet but saying that it was over-wordy, which compared to the BNP's leaflet for Norris Green it is for sure.

We've not seen any Labour Party, Liberal-Democrat posters in windows in Norris Green, and we've just about covered the entired ward. There are one or two BNP leaflets in windows and in the road where Joey Owen lives two neighbouring houses are displaying the BNP/union jack type posters, which don't have printed or published by on them. One was seen on a bus shelter and another on a speed sign both of which were later pulled down. It seems that the BNP activists are not targeting the poorest of the working class in the Norris Green ward, the area the BNP activists live in happens to be the area where income levels are the highest, where homeownership is the greatest, it also received a makeover from 1993 in the form of Estate Action which also saved a couple of roads from threatened demolition. The Boot estate area is the most deprived and there isn't a single party poster in the window in that area, I've not toured it since we last leafleted to check if our posters went up in windows as yet, but it's not BNP territory for sure, it's core working class community many of whom solidly refuse to be shifted from their homes and community despite the best attempts from broad establishment bullying including Lib-Dem's councillors, council staff, police and firebugs.

Many haven't returned their voting forms as of today, Saturday 5th June, many aren't voting including one of my friends who isn't actually registered to vote. But didn't appear to want to vote anyway.

NON-VOTERS:
It appears from what I can gather that people feel dirtied or unclean by voting, it's as though they don't wish to be associated with anyone involved in politics as though all politicians are dishonest, dishonourable people who many don't wish to be seen as giving their support for. This I believe is a serious component of why many simply don't want to vote for any party. Some people have said they are somewhat confused over the voting forms, ie who do you have to get to witness your vote? Then if you're house bound you've got to ask someone to post it for you, it seems many preferred the ballot box.

I had a Labour Party candidate stop me and ask for a copy of my leaflet, I thought they were going to leaflet the area, no he got back into his car and drove off, though I did say that you can understand why people ain't voting because they simply don't get what they're voting for from the main parties, and that I figure the voting turn out will be even lower than the usual 20% in Liverpool, so he tells me that voting figures are as high as they were last year. Jeez he's not Mr.Personality for sure. Oh and somehow the Electoral office hasn't emailed me the voting returns after emailing me the first return on Friday 28th May, what a complete fuck up this is from start to finish.

Oh and nobody contacted me from the Searchlight group about the supposed leafleting in the Norris Green ward, there's no excuse for that really is there?

The SLP campaign team have been leafleting and engaging in dialogue with literally hundreds of local people on the doorstep. I've not seen any Labour, Liberal, Lib-Dems or even Green leafleting teams out over the weeks.

Our unknown supporters in the community have also been out and about fly posting VOTE SLP posters on the Boot estate, down in Croxteth where they are everywhere, which is really naughty as they were given out as (STRICTLY NOT FOR FLYPOSTING) window display posters.

Email:  aokai@tiscali.co.uk

Zinfandel

Yes I am for real.

No one is excusing what is happening in Iraq but do you really think that the average voter actually cares that much when it comes to who they vote for? They don't. Extreme left-wingers will always believe that they can over-ride people's selfish nature and that's where they ultimately fail. And that is why people will look at what else the Labour Party has done, compare it to the Tories and Lib Dems and make the decision based on what is best FOR THEM - not what is best for Iraq. Sad but true.
Yes the Labour Party was the biggest critics - you seem to believe that the whole party is simply the MPs sitting in Westminster. Believe me there are a lot of MPs who are glad that the selection process for the next election was done before the war.

Just how is postal voting more problematic than polling stations? The main argument it seems is that others can influence the way you vote. Come on, think for a minute. Do you honestly believe that an abusive husband, for instance, would have even let his wife out to vote at a polling station? And, if he let her vote, surely he would have registered them both for postal voting already?
Aside from that argument I haven't heard of a good reason not to try postal voting out. Help is there for those filling the forms and they are not as complicated as the right are trying to make out.

And yes, I know that, theoretically, who you vote for can be traced but, as I said, I have been around party offices long enough to see that it doesn't happen. Good grief, people would be chomping at the bit if that sort of info was available. It just doesn't happen! Bloody conspiracy theories. It's why some on the left are called loony - if they don't succeed they run around claiming a great conspiracy.

And, with a firm heel-click I will leave you to sit and plan your revolution.

"Our unknown supporters in the community have also been out and about fly posting VOTE SLP posters on the Boot estate, down in Croxteth where they are everywhere, which is really naughty as they were given out as (STRICTLY NOT FOR FLYPOSTING) window display posters."

Yet they are flyposted everywhere and make the place look bloody awful. As if these places are not run-down enough, then the SLP decides to stick up its posters everywhere making the place look even more unsightly. A lovely thing to see as you walk out of your door. No doubt, after the election, they will be forgotten about and left to go shabby and even worse-looking.
The same with Respect and their stickers everywhere (though the socialist papers have been doing it for years too). Looks awful, undermines your own message as well as the whole area.

Naughty? No, bloody irresponsible.

Kai

You say:
"It appears from what I can gather that people feel dirtied or unclean by voting, it's as though they don't wish to be associated with anyone involved in politics as though all politicians are dishonest, dishonourable people who many don't wish to be seen as giving their support for. This I believe is a serious component of why many simply don't want to vote for any party. Some people have said they are somewhat confused over the voting forms, ie who do you have to get to witness your vote? Then if you're house bound you've got to ask someone to post it for you, it seems many preferred the ballot box. "

A lot of people do not want to vote and never will no matter what political parties do. That's a fact of life. It may not be a nice fact and it is something everyone should always be fighting against but, unfortunately, that is the case. Some people simply cannot be bothered and nothing you say will change it.

Yes, some people feel disenfranchised because they feel that what they have to say is not represented anywhere. This brings up a couple of points - if it is the far left who are saying what they want then why aren't they getting out and voting for you? It is a legitimate question and not meant to antagonise - just that if you are representative then where are the votes to prove it? Secondly, a lot of what they have to say will not be represented anywhere. We have to be honest and say that there are people who want everything for nothing and will never be brought into the political debate. Also, some people genuinely are not interested, much in the same way that some people don't like football. People involved in politics of all shades fool themselves when they think that they can get everyone as enthusiastic as them.
People may feel as though all politicians are dishonest and dishonourable but in that sentence you have to include people from all parties, not just the big three. The far left as much as the far right peddle half-truths and distort facts to suit themselves - exactly what they always say of the main parties. it is no use laying this blame on the major parties and not accepting any responsibility for the far left. (I am unsure whether or not you are accepting any responsibility but - and not just you personally - it is correct). For instance, I have heard of an SLP candidate in Kensington sending out leaflets trying to start rumours that large parts of the ward are to be demolished. I have no doubt that some areas will be, but lumping everywhere else in under the description of "possibly" or "probably" is scaremongering and does no one any favours. I also heard a rumour he was chucked out of a pub for shouting about an opposition candidate being gay. Just a rumour but, if true, rather reveals a lack of tolerance. (and that's not scaremongering, that's stating what rumour has been going around!)

I have no doubt some people are confused over the ballot form but if they follow the instructions then they should be fine. It is not that difficult and help is available. In fact, it is the responsibility of those in politics of whatever colour to help those who are finding it difficult. And as for not being able to get out and post the form, then how did they get to the ballot box?
Proxy voting is still available with a postal vote, and it will be a person they trust who goes out and posts it anyway.

Edseam - a couple of points.

Your political party stands to benefit from disenfranchising pensioners, students and anyone else at this election who does not receive or comprehend what is an intimidating postal ballot paper.

Many pensioners are completely bewildered by the forms, and many of them want to register their protest at council tax rises going up faster than their pension.

The Greens have had to fight, cajole and harass Electoral Services, the Royal Mail and Cosmopolitan housing to enable over 600 students to get a 1 day opportunity to vote. This assumes that the postal ballots sent out tonight (now to their home addresses) arrive tomorrow and that they post them on Wednesday, arriving back on Thursday in time for the count. 635 students who will not be voting en masse for Labour, but quite a few that will be voting for one particular opposition party in that ward.

Elsewhere, Green freepost leaflets are not delivered in their area of greatest strength, Lancaster and Lancashire. All very convenient and even if there has been not one bit of foul play, the fact is that the whole sorry exercise was brought in to bolster Labour's own chances of holding onto seats in areas where people are tired of them, likely to use protest votes against the war and object to our increasingly obvious role as the 51st state. This ballot has been as shoddy and as undemocratic as Florida and the chads.

The disasters of a hastily introduced postal vote system lay firmly at the feet of the Labour government. Either you introduce it properly, everywhere, or you don't do it. The last political party to experiment in selected areas of the UK was the Tories with the Poll Tax in Scotland. Don't try and palm this off on Lib Dems and Tories - they were merely trying to prevent what they see as Labour corruption.

Marybone halls stuff hits the national / local press tomorrow.

Well, for what it's worth, I feel that with these postal votes, those who couldn't be bothered anyway, will probably be less inclined, and those who would bother, probably will vote, and those who might or might not, probably won't now, as in my case. This opens up some interesting questions, the first possibly: why the postal vote in the North of England in the first place? Secondly, why when all seems to be against Blair and co, do they introduce very quickly, and haphazardly, a different voting system? Nothing to do with deterring people who might vote against Labour, would it? Heaven forbid!

The only people who know why postal only votes were introduced are those politicians who decided to introduce them. If you can get a 100% honest answer from any politician, then you are a miracle worker and don't need to ask! For the rest of us, it is conjecture upon conjecture, and it seems that, or might possibly be, a fiasco that will not in any way benefit grassroots participatory democracy. Is this the real reason? I really don't know. Do we live in a particularly democratic society? I can't fully answer that either. Can anyone enlighten me?

The reality is this; Blair promised hell and high water when he came into power seven years ago, and so many people believed earnestly that things would change for the better. In all honesty, the only thing he has really achieved is a minimum wage, which, although reasonable, isn't that good. What else have Labour done, except continue the long tradition of half-truths and political chicanery that all governments involve themsselves in, whatever their political leanings. I see that those who made money under Thatcher, are those being kept sweet under Blair. Little has changed, only a tiny fine-tuning of the message, and we still live in a society blighted by low-wage economies, chronic public transport which is overcrowded, overpriced and badly run, poverty and low opportunities for millions of British people, and a divided society that benefits relative handfuls while penalising in so many ways many more citizens. It is a society where injustice finds its natural home. Britain is a gentleman's club, and if your face or anything else doesn't fit you will be, in some way, sidelined. It is our job to fight back, and to demand, even for our own lives, a better life. This isn't easy. The litmus test of democracy in Britain, and many other places, has been the Iraq war. Nearly everyone was against it wholeheartedly, and yet the politicians and warmongerers got their war! Where was democracy then, the will of the people? It is not even that Britain is poor, or people here starve to death, which they don't as a rule, it is merely that those who have enormous wealth, are allowed to exploit those who don't, are allowed to get away without paying a normal level of tax and, for working class people, a fair and reasonable wage. It is not that ordinary people want an exhorbitant wage, I don't myself, just enough to live on, pay our bills, save some and perhaps enough for a little holiday a year and to buy the odd luxury now and then. It isn't that Britain is poor, it is merely that wealth is concentrated often unfairly in two-few hands, this creates imbalances in power, wealth, education, housing and all the bad things that modern countries are supposed to be against, and that civilisation is supposed to eradicate. In Britain, divisions, in all sorts of ways, are not just accepted, they are encouraged and promoted, and are part and parcel of the social reality of British society. Our relationship to wealth in this country, whether we have it or not, is to a point the basis to which greater society at large will judge us. And here we come right back to postal voting. Those areas which have been forgotten, the rough, poor, rundown and crime-ridden areas of all major towns and cities in the UK, and here I can only really talk about Liverpool, feel that no one really cares. These people and places are those airbrushed from the big picture, the cosy picture of a country at ease with itself. People in these areas don't vote because in many cases nothing seems to change, and things appear only to get worse or stay the same whoever gets in. Why then waste a pen stroke on someone who probably doesn't give a flying one about you and is merely a well-paid careerist politician? Voter apathy is at record heights everywhere, but I suspect none higher than in the areas impoverished under Thatcher, and, sadly, forgotten and neglected under Blair and New Labour.

Justice is the key word; and perhaps injustice too.

Surely if those who want to register a protest against Labour are disenfranchised then so are those who wish to register their support? So it works both ways.

In fact, the party which tends to prosper with low turnouts is the Lib Dems. And I'm afraid that the Lib Dems and Tories need to accept partial blame for any trouble simply because it was them who made it more confusing and them who drew out the implementation process.

The ballot paper would have looked exactly the same (minus the witness statement) if it had been at a polling station. And as for asking for help - there have been ample opportunities for people to get it.

I am not saying everything hThe student halls fiasco and the non-delivery of Green literature as been rosy in the garden of postal voting but I am saying that it is not the disenfranchising scheme you clearly believe it to be. What surprises me is the few peopl (if any) that complained about postal voting before this, because it has been with us quite a long while.

in Lancashire is a Royal Mail fault, not a government one, so don't go harping on about conspiracy theories. In fact, I believe a lot of Labour leaflets were not delivered for the Euro elections.

Sure, some students would have voted Green but perhaps not enough to actually swing a vote their way.

Who is harping on about conspiracy theories?

You are, Edseam! Nobody else in the thread even mentions them - but you manage to squeeze the term in no less than three times. The use of the term is more often than not used by people who are either deeply culpable or short on knowledge to discredit their oppostion.

That you choose to try to discredit the notion that ballot box method of voting is not truly secret and that you claim to have been 'there' so often is surely proof in itself!

No, only kidding. I think you are a bit on the slow side. Anybody who still thinks that the Labour Party leans to the left must be.

Nice response Edseam. Let me restate this, to make sure you are clear.

Even if there is no foul play (and so far only a Lib Dem in Oldham has actually been caught doing something illegal), then the fact that Labour brought in a Postal Vote has benefitted them.

The Greens have flagged up one student hall where ballot papers have not been received, but there other halls where they have been stowed at reception and students have had to ask for them and there are a number of halls with nil returns of votes which we've not yet had time to investigate. This is just Liverpool.

I now understand that similar discoveries are being made in the Fallowfield area of Manchester. The only party that will benefit from this will be the Labour Party. Student votes would go to either the Lib Dems, Greens or some other protest group (including the Tories), who all oppose top-up tuition fees.

With regards to not being enough to swing it. Central ward in Liverpool has about 4500 resident voters and 5000+ student voters. It looks as though about 1500 votes will be cast for the election in this ward. You are telling us that student votes would not be enough to swing it to the Greens?

How close will it have to be for you to believe that it would have made a difference? Either the Greens or the Lib Dems would have benefitted from student votes. Not Labour.

Results will be posted tomorrow and we'll let people decide for themselves.

Lowest Labour candidate got just 515 votes (which elects him for 2 years)

Top Lib Dem candidate got 497 votes (and no doubt would have got more if students had voted)

Liverpool Community Labour lead candidate got 324 votes (unlikely to pick up many student votes though)

Green lead candidate got 223 (15% = to best ever Green result in Liverpool) and would probably have picked up more from students if they had been able to vote

The Greens and the Lib Dems would have benefitted from students voting in this ward, and when just 18 votes separates winner from loser, you have got to accept that even small amounts numbers of lost ballots could have changed the result.

Who are the beneficiaries of this fiasco? Labour. Will they have benefitted elsewhere?

Probably. However, the high Green vote %age wise in a number of wards means that it is looking very promising for the Euro elections and the Greens winning a seat in the North West.

Dartanion

The reason I mention conspiracy theories is all this talk of "they can find out who I have voted for" as if that has actually happened, and the Greens implying that non-delivery of leaflets in Lancashire was somehow suspect.

Accusing me of being slow surely indicates the stupidity of yourself. Personal insults don't get you anywhere.

And the Labour party is on the left. Take a look around you some time. You have yet to wake up to the fact that we are not living in Victorian Britain these days and there will be no working class revolution (there never really was anyway).

Labour are the only hope of the left. The sooner the egotists on the far left realise this the better.

The Greens may have done better with a student vote but you fail to accept that the Greens simply failed to get a student vote out (regardless of any ballot-paper woes), and that is the key to winning an election - Getting out your vote!

Also, who is to say that ALL students would have voted Green/Lib Dem or whatever? They can vote in the various mind-bogglingly different ways that the rest of the electorate does!

Predicition for Europe in NW:

9 Seats
Conservative 3
Labour 3
Lib Dem 2
UKIP 1

That is the feeling that is coming from various European commentators I have spoken to over the past few days. The Greens have failed to drive home their message and people see them as being an environmental pressure group in the North West - different to many other places. Respect have been undone by the ego of George Galloway - they are being seen as a protest vote (obviously) but one that has failed to show what they actually stand for to the wider electorate. BNP have been overtaken by UKIP.

So, come on then, Edseam, I doubted that they would have bothered to trace votes, but as you are so intent on pursuing the issue perhaps you can explain why, in a supposed secret ballot, voting can be traced back to the voter?

It might have seemed a little laborious when the ballot box was used but now that we have computerised systems and barcodes it is only a matter of requesting the data and the rest could feasibly be Florida!

fsdgvs

I’m sorry you felt so sensitive about my points Edseam. I’m not into personalising stuff on Indymedia. I'm just trying to clarify things for you. Easy in a conversation. Not easy in an email. Let me try again.

A failure of freepost delivery is suspicious, especially when the Greens were the first to deliver their freepost leaflets to the Royal Mail. It only takes one unscrupulous individual to ensure these are “filed” somewhere. If it happens to more than one party in a particular area it becomes an issue of competence, but for Green leaflets to fail to get delivered in areas where their support is strongest remains suspicious. We are investigating, but not yet accusing.

The Green vote in Liverpool in Central ward was indeed reliant on getting the student vote out and was a strategy that didn't pay off this time. The election being moved from 6th May to 27th May (because of the government decision to harmonise with the Euro date) took a number of 1st and 2nd year students out of the equation, as they are the most likely to go home straight after their exams. The failure of ballot papers to reach students has also benefited Labour here in Liverpool.

If 600 students had voted we believed we would have had a chance and if 1200 students voted we would definitely overtake both Labour and the Lib Dems in Central ward. In the end, just over 200 students voted. We are investigating the halls issue as we also know that 3/4 of students had left by close of poll. 1000 student votes would require a 20% turnout of all students. In the end, we got a 20% turnout on the 1200 students we think got ballot papers. Our figures suggested that we would get roughly 2 votes to every 1 vote for the Lib Dems/Tories. I'm sure their would have been some odd student votes, and maybe even 1 or 2 for Labour, but seriously...

We have already proven that 635 students did not receive their ballot papers on 27th May while most of them were still in that particular hall. We have also got evidence that a further 388 students did not have their ballot papers distributed to them when the postal ballots were in hall offices. If distribution had been immediate (on the 27th and 28th) we would have seen a much higher turnout. Over 1000 students have had voting made practically impossible and that is what we know already. We are continuing to investigate.

There is no suggestion yet that the failure of the 635 students to receive ballot papers was anything other than a sequence of failures in addressing the items, delivering the items and the items not being returned to the Electoral Returning Officer. The distribution of 388 ballot papers strikes me as laziness and apathy on the part of that particular student hall. We are now investigating halls across the city.

What we have shown is that 1000 students in the city centre halls did not receive their postal ballots / or have the same opportunity in terms of time as local residents had. On our figures, even if just 10% of these students had voted, the Lib Dems would have taken 1 seat from Labour. Not us, unfortunately. But Labour in Liverpool has benefited from the postal ballot system and the chaos that has followed. Case proven. Quite lucky really, otherwise it would have been an even worse night for them.

Before anyone replies to tell us that we would not have been representive of the local resident vote if we had been elected, please remember that just 515 votes elected the 3rd placed candidate, out of an electorate of 10000+ of which more than half are students. My feeling is that Labour councillors are unrepresentative of the ward and have just been very lucky this time. Across Liverpool our lead candidates gained over 4400 votes (standing in less than half the wards) and yet these residents will get no representation for the party they support. You can't have it both ways.

Finally, although we won no seats, our lead candidates gained over 15% in 4 wards. In local elections across the country where Greens have stood, we've averaged more than 10% of the vote. We've also picked up more councillors elsewhere. We are not going anywhere. We'll be back again at the next election, and the election after that one. This is the best feature of elections – there is always another one on the horizon. Unlike Edseam, I’m confident we’ll be getting a Green MEP in the North West and that will help us enormously here in Liverpool.

We will beat both Labour and the Lib Dems in Liverpool in some wards, at some point, even under a First Past the Post system. For the sceptics, have a look at Church ward. No Green campaign other than the Freepost leaflet alone, led to our candidate getting more votes than all three Labour candidates (making the Greens the 2nd placed party). In Greenbank and St Michaels, we should overtake Labour in 2006.

Just like Labour supporters, we don't enjoy seeing the Lib Dems dominate the city, but the Labour opposition are seen as a joke. They walk out of council chambers rather than vote against motions that would make them look unpopular, and they've been completely hamstrung because they have been in "special measures" as a wayward local party until very recently. There are a few good Labour councillors. Unfortunately not enough of them to counteract the weight of an unpopular national government. Expect to become more, not less unpopular in the next few years.

Edseam's prediction was spot on.

Shockingly the far right vote in the North West was 20% (split between UKIP, BNP and English Democrats). The Greens were overtaken by the BNP. More analysis to follow on a new thread.

Having an identifying mark on the ballot paper/witness statement means that it can be checked whether someone has voted or not. In the event of any fraud, the vote can be traced and that vote discounted.

So, you admit it, it's not secret then!

It doesn't matter if the 'paperwork' is done to check for fraud, the bottom line is it is traceable. Therefore not secret.

It is secret until the point that it is fraud. Surely you're not suggesting that absolutely no form of identification is needed? In times where identity fraud is on the increase, it seems reasonable. I accept that it is open to abuse but so is the ultra-secret ballot. We have seen in previous elections, people voting when they are supposedly dead! Surely it is acceptable to be able to go back and discount that vote.


On a closely-related matter (!):
The distrust of big political parties here is maniacal. But then, if the SLP, SA or whoever got into power, people would be able to trust them no bother wouldn't they?! Why of course, no one would distrust them! I'm not saying all politicians can be trusted, or that all politicians can not be trusted, but where doews this stop? The far left parties commit as many distasteful things as the major parties (lies, deceit, unsavoury characters etc).


Scargill's ego ruined the miners; don't let it happen to you!

Edseam

wrote

"Scargill's ego ruined the miners; don't let it happen to you!"

Cheap shot from a Tory...

I think you'll find it was Margaret Thatcher's Tory government and the betrayal of the TUC and Kinnocks Labour party that 'ruined the miners'. Just like it was the TUC and the Labour Party that betrayed the workers in the 1926 general strike. Arthur lead the miners against the destruction of their communities and industry, he didn't dictate that the miners went out on strike, many were already out in unofficial strike before it was made official, he even tried to come to an agreement to end the strike which was sabotaged by the Labour party.

Yes Thatcher went some way but if you examine the facts, it was Scargill's ego that let her. HE was the one who refused to ballot his members therefore preventing the Labour party from openly supporting the NUM AND preventing the Nottinghamshire miners from joining the dispute. Labour constantly requested him to vote but he dismissed it. They needed that vote because you can only fight from within in situations like that.

I am not a Tory, I just realise that Scargill's ego prevented him from following due process, which would have legitimised the struggle and the vote would have been successful anyway.

Thatcher's role in the ruination of not just the miners but the whole of British industry and the subsequent destruction of our industrial towns and villages is not in question here. Just that you cannot win a battle if you have already tied one hand behind your back before you start.

Yes the miners were right to strike and Scargill was right in what he was saying BUT he should have had the humility to ballot his members rather than leading them blindly on due to his own raging ego.

Edseam, Your assessment of Scargill doesn't sound unlike the general concensus on your dear leader who, had he had the humility to recognise that his 'subjects' overwhelmingly opposed his war plans, might have saved several thousand lives.

As for your repeated assertion that much of the PLP opposed the war, if they had really wanted to stop it they could have done by means of a vote of no confidence. Of course, had this backfired they would have incurred Blair's wrath and no doubt careers might have been on the line. Blair asked for a 'blood sacrifice' which was to be paid by our servicemen and the Iraqi population in a bogus war. Labour MP's didn't even have the guts to risk their jobs to save these thousands of lives.

As for the elections, sadly people are more motivated by the 'what's in it for me' factor rather than the greater good. A Thatcherite legacy which was eagerly embraced by the Nouveaux Socialistes. An unfortunate consequence of this will be the destruction of the natural environment in the name of industry and a substance which has no intrinsic value whatsoever, i.e. money.

Blair's indifference to the people's opinions on Europe.

Tell me, what's the point in voting?

I accept your points you make but with a couple of caveats.

Firstly, Scargill was duty-bound to put the ballot to his members yet he didn't. UNlike parliament, where we delegate our decision-making to MPs, Scargill did not have any delegated powers to order a strike. He should have balloted (and he no doubt would have won the ballot). And that's the difference between such a comparison between Scargill and Blair. One acted quite legitimately with regards to process, (whether we like it or not) and the other didn't. And that is something the far left (indeed anyone) has to accept. The system as it stands allows for it and it is no use saying we must simply change the system because it ain't gonna happen. At least not straight away.

I don't justify the war (though I think there were sound reasons for it - just as many as there is against) but I do think that a lot of people wanted to use it simply to give Blair a kicking.

With regards to Iraq and the behaviour of the PLP, it does place a big question for people come the next election:
"If you disagreed with the Iraq war, do you want to oust your Labour MP if he/she voted for it in favour of a party such as the Tories or the Lib Dems being put into power to pursue true Thatcher ideals?" or variations on that theme - what is the alternative?. I know here people will cry "SWP" or "SLP" or "Green" or "Respect" or whatever but let's live in the real world here. None of those "alternative" parties are anywhere close to electable, popular support.

I suppose you probably bracket me in with the "Nouveaux Socialistes" but I can assure you I am not. I agree that there is an element of my party who believe they should adopt Thatcherite-style appeals to people's "f*** you jack, I'm alright" beliefs but I would not go so far as to say they are Thatcherite policies (not in the strictest sense but admittedly she probably smiles at some of them). What I believe is that, in the real world, you have accept that there will be a strong element of the electorate like that and to ignore them means you do not have the power to actually affect any change for anyone else. Perhaps that makes me New Labour. I rather hope not. I just think it makes me a bit more rooted in the real world.

The attacks on the environment are something I believe that Labour is getting to grips with (though, like the rest of the world we are still behind where we should be). I personally use every available opportunity to make it clear to MPs and Ministers their responsibilities to the planet, people and sustainability.

Edseam wrote:

"Firstly, Scargill was duty-bound to put the ballot to his members yet he didn't."

Who said the NUM leadership didn't have a ballot?

* I have it on first hand authority that the NUM leadership did have a ballot, it was taken in 1983 and called for strike action in the event of threatened closures of mines.

You said: "UNlike parliament, where we delegate our decision-making to MPs, Scargill did not have any delegated powers to order a strike."

See * above...

You said: "He should have balloted (and he no doubt would have won the ballot)."

See * above... And if the NUM had had another ballot in 1984 Kinnock would have still sabbotaged any settlement as they twice did in 1984.

You said: "And that's the difference between such a comparison between Scargill and Blair. One acted quite legitimately with regards to process, (whether we like it or not) and the other didn't."

See * above...

You said: "And that is something the far left (indeed anyone) has to accept."

See * above...

You said: "The system as it stands allows for it and it is no use saying we must simply change the system because it ain't gonna happen. At least not straight away."

Anyway in regards to having it on authority that's direct from Arthur Scargill as recorded on Video on March 12th this year, the full story on the 1984/85 strike from the NUM leader himself.

Just to put the record straight.