30% of the Peterborough by-election votes were postal. Watch

salterway
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice says the decision to launch a legal action against the result of the Peterborough by-election is necessary in order to reestablish 'trust in the voting system.'
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
(Original post by salterway)
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice says the decision to launch a legal action against the result of the Peterborough by-election is necessary in order to reestablish 'trust in the voting system.'
Does he have any evidence whatsoever that there was fraud involved? Shouldnt he take it to the police and the electoral commission?
I can see the advantage of a postal vote and soon to be internet vote .
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
I don't like postal votes, mainly because they don't ensure the voter makes a free, anonymous choice. Sure, some disabled people need them, but no way is that anywhere close to 30% of the electorate. I wouldn't assume all fraud based on 30%, but it is way too high for my liking - how many people are being told how to vote or even had their vote directly filled in by an oppressive head of household? And of course, yes, the more postal votes the more potential there is for fraud. Seeing the same person come in wearing different outfits/hats provides some protection against fraud, whereas postal there isn't any.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
Considering he's the one who seems to be trying to undermine the integrity of the electoral system there would seem to be whiff if irony here.
1
reply
JohanGRK
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
Gammon shouldn't call out other gammon, it's marginalised enough as is >:[
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by 999tigger)
Does he have any evidence whatsoever that there was fraud involved? Shouldnt he take it to the police and the electoral commission?
I can see the advantage of a postal vote and soon to be internet vote .
There is a very strict time limit on bringing claims. He can't wait for the police to complete their investigations. If the police take months about this, the election result could only be overturned if the winning candidate was implicated in the fraud.

I suspect his problem will be absence of evidence. The traditional parties have eyes and ears on the ground for this. The Brexit Party is a new type of political party without members but also without people to fight a scrummaging campaign.

Central Ward in Peterborough, which I know well, is utterly corrupt, but saying that and proving interference with this election are two different things. Previous corruption in Central Ward hasn't numerically been large enough to effect this election and is self-cancelling because everyone was doing it.
1
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
(Original post by nulli tertius)
There is a very strict time limit on bringing claims. He can't wait for the police to complete their investigations. If the police take months about this, the election result could only be overturned if the winning candidate was implicated in the fraud.

I suspect his problem will be absence of evidence. The traditional parties have eyes and ears on the ground for this. The Brexit Party is a new type of political party without members but also without people to fight a scrummaging campaign.

Central Ward in Peterborough, which I know well, is utterly corrupt, but saying that and proving interference with this election are two different things. Previous corruption in Central Ward hasn't numerically been large enough to effect this election and is self-cancelling because everyone was doing it.
It ap[pears to be based on [ashamed of source] Mr Tice claimed to have evidence proving a “convicted fraudster” was working as an agent for the Labour Party, understood to be a reference to Tariq Mahmood, who was jailed for fraud for 15 months in 2008 and who was pictured with Ms Forbes and Jeremy Corbyn.

Wouldnt he still have to prove said person had actually participated in some fraud? Is there some rule against people with criminal records?
0
reply
fallen_acorns
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by 999tigger)
It ap[pears to be based on [ashamed of source] Mr Tice claimed to have evidence proving a “convicted fraudster” was working as an agent for the Labour Party, understood to be a reference to Tariq Mahmood, who was jailed for fraud for 15 months in 2008 and who was pictured with Ms Forbes and Jeremy Corbyn.

Wouldnt he still have to prove said person had actually participated in some fraud? Is there some rule against people with criminal records?
I don't get why labour wouldn't see this as a problem. Person who is convicted of voter fraud.. then becomes an integral part of their team and gets described as the 'mastermind' behind their campaign by their members (mastermind may be the wrong word, it was something like that though).

Of course the loosing side is going to kick up a fuss, and they will get a bit of bad press. Maybe nothing happened? But its just not a smart move by labour to assosiate with him either way.
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by 999tigger)
It ap[pears to be based on [ashamed of source] Mr Tice claimed to have evidence proving a “convicted fraudster” was working as an agent for the Labour Party, understood to be a reference to Tariq Mahmood, who was jailed for fraud for 15 months in 2008 and who was pictured with Ms Forbes and Jeremy Corbyn.

Wouldnt he still have to prove said person had actually participated in some fraud? Is there some rule against people with criminal records?
And?

The Brexit Party have discovered that which everyone in Peterborough knows.

Care for this story from the local paper from 2018

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...onut-1-8482795

Or this one from a political gossip site 5 months before the by-election.

https://www.politicalite.com/corbyn/...of-vote-fraud/

As former Labour Mayor of Peterborough and convicted election fraudster Mohammed Choudhary said "Time goes on, live moves on"

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...back-1-8309139

And in his case it did. When that article was published in January 2018 he was the Conservative candidate for Central Ward. By election day in May 2018 he was standing as an Independent, coming second in the ward and beating the new Conservative candidate by 58 votes.

But don't worry Central Ward is in good hands. At the May 2019 election Mohammed Jamil was returned as a Councillor and he has not been up before the beak for rigging elections; only for not paying his Council Tax.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ears-1-7990754
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by nulli tertius)
And?

The Brexit Party have discovered that which everyone in Peterborough knows.

Care for this story from the local paper from 2018

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...onut-1-8482795

Or this one from a political gossip site 5 months before the by-election.

https://www.politicalite.com/corbyn/...of-vote-fraud/

As former Labour Mayor of Peterborough and convicted election fraudster Mohammed Choudhary said "Time goes on, live moves on"

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...back-1-8309139

And in his case it did. When that article was published in January 2018 he was the Conservative candidate for Central Ward. By election day in May 2018 he was standing as an Independent, coming second in the ward and beating the new Conservative candidate by 58 votes.

But don't worry Central Ward is in good hands. At the May 2019 election Mohammed Jamil was returned as a Councillor and he has not been up before the beak for rigging elections; only for not paying his Council Tax.

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...ears-1-7990754
That could be interpreted as being a bit snarky?
I was merely throwing in what is believed to be the basis for the Brexit party claim.
If it was well known, then without further evidence it seems to be more sour grapes.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by 999tigger)
That could be interpreted as being a bit snarky?
I was merely throwing in what is believed to be the basis for the Brexit party claim.
If it was well known, then without further evidence it seems to be more sour grapes.
I am not being snarky to you but I think The Brexit Party were woefully undercooked for a contest in an area with known electoral malpractice issues. They needed people on the ground collecting evidence of wrongdoing rather than saying "please sir, there's a nasty man who's not playing fair".
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I am not being snarky to you but I think The Brexit Party were woefully undercooked for a contest in an area with known electoral malpractice issues. They needed people on the ground collecting evidence of wrongdoing rather than saying "please sir, there's a nasty man who's not playing fair".
ok and yes that is up to them. They are rather background noise. I expect a general election soon. I really dislike the rules about fixed term parliaments and we would have benefited from an election a long time before this so someone got a majority.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by 999tigger)
ok and yes that is up to them. They are rather background noise. I expect a general election soon. I really dislike the rules about fixed term parliaments and we would have benefited from an election a long time before this so someone got a majority.
I do wonder if Boris is planning a General Election rather than waiting for the car to crash a la Theresa May.

There was a slightly hysterical piece in yesterday's Times by Matthew Paris backing Grieve's latest bid to block a no deal Brexit through Parliament not sitting. That should fail, although it is dependent on the Government fighting Boris' corner and if the whips nod and wink, that will be the end of prorogation plotting.

The reality is that Boris hasn't got enough votes to carry any No Deal Brexit; there are enough Remainder diehards to bring him down and there are sufficient votes for a caretaker PM to steer us away from No Deal.

Boris has to do something and a General Election is something.

The FTPA rather than the Referendum is Cameron's real disaster. Confidence was a political weapon and its has been blunted on both sides.
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by nulli tertius)
I do wonder if Boris is planning a General Election rather than waiting for the car to crash a la Theresa May.

There was a slightly hysterical piece in yesterday's Times by Matthew Paris backing Grieve's latest bid to block a no deal Brexit through Parliament not sitting. That should fail, although it is dependent on the Government fighting Boris' corner and if the whips nod and wink, that will be the end of prorogation plotting.

The reality is that Boris hasn't got enough votes to carry any No Deal Brexit; there are enough Remainder diehards to bring him down and there are sufficient votes for a caretaker PM to steer us away from No Deal.

Boris has to do something and a General Election is something.

The FTPA rather than the Referendum is Cameron's real disaster. Confidence was a political weapon and its has been blunted on both sides.
The blind belief in the cult of Boris is astonishing. He is in exactly the same place as May was if he becomes PM.
The EU arent interested in reopening negotiations.
Boris doesnt have any solutions, that he has told us about.

I think it will be no deal by default.


It is another planet stuff.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by 999tigger)
I think it will be no deal by default.
But how does he bring about No Deal by default?

If Parliament is sitting a Vote of No Confidence (VNC) will be carried. Enough Tory MPs will defy the whip with no future prospects and for any Labour MP to break ranks on this would would mean instant loss of the whip and no right to stand in the next election.

I do not see how a Government that has lost a VNC can hope to retain control of the Parliamentary agenda. Bercow can rightly say that the precedents don't apply. There was no attempt to dictate Commons business in 1924 or 1979, the only two VNCs since the Government got control of the Order Paper.

Labour may or may not table a motion for a loyal address that the Queen summon Corbyn to be PM but that will fail. However a motion for a loyal address for a caretaker PM (Clarke or Cooper or Beckett) who undertakes to stop a No Deal Brexit but then table a motion for a General Election will pass whoever proposes it and if Corbyn attempts to block it, Labour gets tarred with Brexit. You are looking at 24-48 hours to put this in place.

Prorogation at the end of a Session is an actual ceremony. There is no mechanism to do it by paperwork when the House isn't sitting. Any attempt to do a surprise prorogation will look like the Arrest of the Five Members or the Tennis Court Oath or, the nearest example, the surprise dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in 1681; all on live TV. I don't think it is doable.

If prorogation isn't a surprise, then a VNC will be tabled first.

If Boris prorogues Parliament on the basis that it will resumes before 31st October for a new session; the start date of the new session can be postponed by proclamation by the Queen on the advice of her Privy Council (Prorogation Act 1867); but that is going to require a massive breach of faith on Boris' part and the Queen to go along with that breach of faith. It seems bloody unlikely.

The key point with any constitutional trickery however, is more profound. Unless you can keep power for at least a reasonable time afterwards, your opponents can simply say that what you fought to do never happened. In other words, if by chicanery Boris prevented anyone from blocking a No Deal Brexit on 31st October, a Remainer Parliament meeting in early December could by agreement with the rest of the EU simply declare Brexit never happened.

Jane was never Queen. The first day of Charles II's reign was 31st January 1649. James' dropping of the Great Seal in the Thames had no impact whatsoever on the continuance of government. The basis for this approach is there in Article 50. We have to leave in accordance with our own Constitutional arrangements. So, if a future Parliament says what happened in October 2019 was unconstitutional, there is material in the EU legal order to agree with that conclusion. No rejoining is needed. No new treaties are needed. We never left.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
Considering he's the one who seems to be trying to undermine the integrity of the electoral system there would seem to be whiff if irony here.
I fear I may be feeding here but how do you work that out?
0
reply
999tigger
Badges: 19
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by nulli tertius)
But how does he bring about No Deal by default?

If Parliament is sitting a Vote of No Confidence (VNC) will be carried. Enough Tory MPs will defy the whip with no future prospects and for any Labour MP to break ranks on this would would mean instant loss of the whip and no right to stand in the next election.

I do not see how a Government that has lost a VNC can hope to retain control of the Parliamentary agenda. Bercow can rightly say that the precedents don't apply. There was no attempt to dictate Commons business in 1924 or 1979, the only two VNCs since the Government got control of the Order Paper.

Labour may or may not table a motion for a loyal address that the Queen summon Corbyn to be PM but that will fail. However a motion for a loyal address for a caretaker PM (Clarke or Cooper or Beckett) who undertakes to stop a No Deal Brexit but then table a motion for a General Election will pass whoever proposes it and if Corbyn attempts to block it, Labour gets tarred with Brexit. You are looking at 24-48 hours to put this in place.

Prorogation at the end of a Session is an actual ceremony. There is no mechanism to do it by paperwork when the House isn't sitting. Any attempt to do a surprise prorogation will look like the Arrest of the Five Members or the Tennis Court Oath or, the nearest example, the surprise dissolution of the Oxford Parliament in 1681; all on live TV. I don't think it is doable.

If prorogation isn't a surprise, then a VNC will be tabled first.

If Boris prorogues Parliament on the basis that it will resumes before 31st October for a new session; the start date of the new session can be postponed by proclamation by the Queen on the advice of her Privy Council (Prorogation Act 1867); but that is going to require a massive breach of faith on Boris' part and the Queen to go along with that breach of faith. It seems bloody unlikely.

The key point with any constitutional trickery however, is more profound. Unless you can keep power for at least a reasonable time afterwards, your opponents can simply say that what you fought to do never happened. In other words, if by chicanery Boris prevented anyone from blocking a No Deal Brexit on 31st October, a Remainer Parliament meeting in early December could by agreement with the rest of the EU simply declare Brexit never happened.

Jane was never Queen. The first day of Charles II's reign was 31st January 1649. James' dropping of the Great Seal in the Thames had no impact whatsoever on the continuance of government. The basis for this approach is there in Article 50. We have to leave in accordance with our own Constitutional arrangements. So, if a future Parliament says what happened in October 2019 was unconstitutional, there is material in the EU legal order to agree with that conclusion. No rejoining is needed. No new treaties are needed. We never left.
I dont think im invested in it any more. I am sad how it has divided the country and the lack of foresight in padding out the referendum question plus lack of prep for no deal.

There seems to be a cult of Boris that he will sort everything out , yet he hasnt shown any actual evidence of having any solutions.
Will have to see if the MPs get the vote of no confidence passed and how the country reacts to that. Just when you think it cant get any more messy....
If we dont leave by October and parliament pevents it then I think the public reaction could get ugly.

I cant believe what such a mess it has all been.
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by salterway)
Brexit Party chairman Richard Tice says the decision to launch a legal action against the result of the Peterborough by-election is necessary in order to reestablish 'trust in the voting system.'
I don't see the big hoo harr with this, unless there are reasonable grounds to suspect corruption in the postal vote, in which case the problem is with the people who are acting illegal and must be brought to justice.

Postal voting is is not the problem either way.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by ThomH97)
I don't like postal votes, mainly because they don't ensure the voter makes a free, anonymous choice. Sure, some disabled people need them, but no way is that anywhere close to 30% of the electorate. I wouldn't assume all fraud based on 30%, but it is way too high for my liking - how many people are being told how to vote or even had their vote directly filled in by an oppressive head of household? And of course, yes, the more postal votes the more potential there is for fraud. Seeing the same person come in wearing different outfits/hats provides some protection against fraud, whereas postal there isn't any.
As you probably know postal voting was relaxed a few years ago because falling turnouts at the polling station were starting to look bad and significant amounts of fraud weren't thought to be taking place (except in NI naturally)

30% isn't anywhere near a record btw, Newcastle upon Tyne North hit 41% in 2017 * and that was just a boring old general.

IMO voting in person doesn't fit with the way people expect to be able to live their lives in 2019... but it could be improved - there is afaik currently no way for a voter to check which polling station they should go to on the internet and (especially in locals) there is no easy way to know how many voting papers they'll be given when they get there, how many crosses they need to make on the papers or which candidates will be on the papers. I think voting in person feels like going to a shop where you have to take your baked beans to the tills to find out what the price is - and people feel uncomfortable doing that (which is why no shops operate on that system)

* page 9
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I fear I may be feeding here but how do you work that out?
Feeding?
Well his specious claims/inferring of voter fraud ipso facto undermine trust in the system.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Are cats selfish

Yes (57)
56.44%
No (44)
43.56%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed