What's going on with Harlow?

Do you reckon Mr Bennett insisted on a recount in hexadecimal?

Close, but below is a report revealing the true facts about the recount saga at Harlow.

I've been given three different figures for my number of votes to date; the latest (the figure keeps dropping) is 958 votes, or 2.4% of those cast


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One Veritas candidate is still awaiting confirmation of his result, after a nightmare series of clerical errors and legal problems hit the Parliamentary count in the Harlow constituency of Foreign Office Minister Bill Rammell last night.

After a slow count, the bad news began when the Returning Officer, Malcolm Morley, informed the candidates and agents that there was a very close result - less than 100 votes between the top two candidates - but then admitted that 176 votes had been 'lost' between the initial 'verification check' and the end of the first count.

A recount was ordered, which proceeded, again, very slowly, and at around 4pm a new provisional result was given to the agents.

The news was even worse this time. The gap between the two leading candidates had narrowed to less than 50, but the discrepancies between the initial verification count and the latest tally had widened so much that the Returning Officer was too embarrassed to disclose the difference.

A third count was then held, resulting in another figure under 50 for the difference between the two top candidates; meanwhile the discrepancy between the verification count and the latest figures on the third count rose from 176 to an amazing 558.

Many representations by the agents followed and there were huddled conferences amongst the election staff. Finally, the Council lawyer Owen Willcox was summoned to try to discover what, if anything, election law had to say on the subject of a large discrepancy in the counted ballot papers when there were fewer than 50 votes between the candidates.

As the lawyer thumbed his way laborioulsly through election regulations and dozens of complex case precedents, counters began resting their heads on the tables and some even fell asleep.

At 6.00am the Returning Officer was ready to order a further count to try and discover the source of the discrepancies, but two agents then raised the question of whether or not the counters were either able or willling to carry on counting. As the agents and election staff looked across the counting hall, with several staff apparently asleep, it became reasonably clear that no further count could possibly take place that morning. By this time, the sun had been up for an hour or more already.

The agent whose candidate had 'won' in all three counts so far, albeit by a narrow margin, now requested the Returning Officer to declare a result in favour of his candidate. He politely declined to do so in view of the continuing uncertainty about the count.

The Returning Officer then announced that the count would resume at 10.00 am on Saturday morning. He would contact all the candidates to tell them where the count was to be held, as a suitable hall would have to be found at short notice.

Further representations were then made by some agents about the safe custody of the ballot papers and whether or not there was a further risk of any ballot papers being lost and the vote discrepancies getting ever larger.

The candidates and agents were finally discharged at 6.45am.

The venue has now been fixed for Sumners Community and Leisure Centre, Broadway Road, Harlow.

Meanwhile the ballot papers are in safe custody in a cell at Harlow Police Station under lock and key and constant observation.

It is to be hoped that there are fewer than the usual number of 'drunk and disorderlies' on the streets of Harlow tonight.

Harlow Council's track record at elections is poor. In May 2003, just two years ago, the Council managed to disenfranchise 3,279 postal voters when - due to a management error - insufficient instructions were given to printers regarding the need to perforate the postal ballot papers. They were sent out to voters unperforated and returmed before the mistake was realised. Or so it was said. A subsequent investigation, however, found that the Council knew about the problem 14 days before the date of the election, but failed to act. The final report led to criticism of five election officials. Meanwhile there was an outcry from those who felt their right to cast a vote had been trampled on.

This report on the 2003 Harlow Council postal votes fiasco was included in the recent report by the Ballot Box Society:

---------------------------------------------------

26. Harlow, Essex, May 2003 - 3,279 postal votes invalid for want of official mark

Widely described as a ‘fiasco’ in the local press, 3,279 voters (around 14% of those voting) found that they had voted by post but that their votes could not be counted. The blunder came when a private printing company failed to mark thousands of postal vote forms with the official mark - the perforations usually found on the top left of a ballot paper [a vote is invalid if the mark is not on the ballot form].

The mistake came to light 14 days before the election but the electorate were not informed.

There was widespread anger and an expensive inquiry which concluded that five Council staff and the printing company were all to blame. No action, however, was taken against any Council staff. Moreover, the Chief Executive, whose salary included several thousand pounds a year enhancement for having responsibility for the good conduct of elections, moved up aftre the fisaco to a more senior post as Chief Executive of Wokingham Unitary Authority. He claimed that counting the invalid postal votes would not have affected the result of any ward. A Liberal Democrat Councillor said: “We are shocked and angry at the administration of the election on 1 May 2003 in which several thousand Harlow voters were denied their democratic right to have their vote counted…’ - Sources: Numerous reports in Harlow Star, Harlow Independent and Harlow Herald


-----------------------------------------------------

One has a certain amount of sympathy with the staff carrying out the count last night, but then again perhaps not too much sympathy, as it appears that the basic problem is that staff who are paid to add up figures are incapable of doing so accurately"


[this inability to count and add up properly is happening more and more these days now that we have moved away from duodecimal counting. Metrication has a lot to answer for]

THis report on the BBCi website gives the BBC 'take' on the situation with the count at Harlow:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tired counters halt key recount

A second recount at a key Conservative target seat has been suspended because volunteers were too tired to carry on.
The returning officer at Harlow, Essex, stopped work shortly after 0600 BST on Friday, but staff will return for a further count on Saturday morning.

A Harlow Council spokesman said: "Due to the tiredness of the count staff a recount will now take place tomorrow."

Volunteers began work at Harlow Sports Centre at 2130 BST on Friday. The first ballot box arrived at 2220 BST.

The decision to stop the count and send the 80 volunteers home was taken by the returning officer after consultation with the council's legal advisor.

Labour won a 5,228 majority over the Conservatives in the constituency in 2001.

The seat is being defended by Bill Rammell, a parliamentary under-secretary at the Foreign Office.

The results are finally in:

Bill Rammell Labour 16,453
Robert Halfon Conservative 16,356
Lorna Spenceley Liberal Democrat 5,002
John Felgate UK Independence Party 981
Tony Bennett Veritas 941

Had UKIP and Veritas not fielded a candidate, chances are the Conservatives would have taken this seat!

re (Stan): "Had UKIP and Veritas not fielded a candidate, chances are the Conservatives would have taken this seat!"

REPLY: May be. Who can tell? But if you think that a priority for Britain is to leave the European Union and revert to a free trade agreement with the countries of the E.U., then you have to offer voters the chance to vote for a party committed to such a policy. That's democracy.

In the last two General Elections, I would say that the balance of my support in Harlow has come from those who formerly voted Labour, not Conservative.

Conservative Leader Michael Howard is on record more than once as saying: "Britain will never leave the European Union"

"""REPLY: May be. Who can tell? But if you think that a priority for Britain is to leave the European Union and revert to a free trade agreement with the countries of the E.U., then you have to offer voters the chance to vote for a party committed to such a policy. That's democracy.

In the last two General Elections, I would say that the balance of my support in Harlow has come from those who formerly voted Labour, not Conservative.

Conservative Leader Michael Howard is on record more than once as saying: "Britain will never leave the European Union" """


The las statement is an actual fact. It can and will never happen. Too many business interests have too much at stake and would not allow a petty fringe group to destroy their prosperity. There also would never be an trade agreements between the UK and individual European countries outside the context of the EU.

If the UK did manage to leave the EU, the EU would break the UK apart and admit the free territories back in. Possibly Wales, Scotland and Ulster. The English are the most anti-EU and they would be punished with trade sanctions and boycotts of business.

It would be a very hefty price to pay just to think that leaving the EU would return Britain to using FFU. That in itself is another fantasy of the fringe parties.

re (Erin GoBragh): "If the UK did manage to leave the EU, the EU would break the UK apart and admit the free territories back in. Possibly Wales, Scotland and Ulster. The English are the most anti-EU and they would be punished with trade sanctions and boycotts of business"


REPLY: Yes, I think from your description of the E.U. they sound like the kind of people I always thought they were. Question is: how on earth did we get mixed up with them in the first place?

Excuse me? Is Erin proposing that imperialist activities are okay? If the E.U. did do as described, they would have to be renamed... to the 'United Empire of Europe' (or U.E.E.).

Tony:

You asked "Question is: how on earth did we get mixed up with them in the first place?"

My answer: It is at least partially because of the political and economic pressure exerted by the Imperial Federal Government of the United States. Sorry about that -- we're trying to fix the problem, but there are too few libertarians and too many apathetic voters.

Now, I'm sure I come across on this forum as a reformer (insofar as I'm a strong advocate of the metric system), but even people like me are concerned how the EU is becoming a bloated and unaccountable monster with bureaucracy for the sake of bureaucracy.

The EU appears to be modelled on the expensive, medelling and overly-centralised government machines in place in most continental countries (France being a prime example) and in my view, is a good indicator as to how far we have acutally moved on here in the last 20 years or so, or to put it otherwise, how far behind others have remained.

What I find alarming is the lack of democracy and the cost to us. I mean, while we have dirty hospitals and pot-holed roads here, Spain has brand-new, virtually unsused Autopistas (motorways) built with our money and Chirac has the nerve to suggest our rebate should be withdrawn - this from a man who expects the rest of us to prop up his idle farmers because he doesn't have the guts to tell them to face up to reality. The French love the EU, because joined with Germany (who do as they are told by the French due to war guilt) they have a lot of influence.

I am glad we did not join the Euro. Whilst not anti-European, I think it ridiculous to apply one economic model to 25 entirely different economies and what would it do to us if we had to run at the pace of the slowest performer, such as Albania? The ECB would tell us off if our growth was too high or fast. How ridiculous is that? If the others want to join the great experiment, let them but I think we are better off giving the Euro a wide berth.

I am not against European Unity by nature, but our current attempt at it is an utter mess and it seems to me that the people who are the keenest are those who stand to gain the most from it, in terms of economic aid.

Erin:
"If the UK did manage to leave the EU, the EU would break the UK apart and admit the free territories back in. Possibly Wales, Scotland and Ulster. The English are the most anti-EU and they would be punished with trade sanctions and boycotts of business."

Stan:
I'm not so sure Erin. If we are a lucrative market from their point of view then they'll trade with us, they won't punish us out of spite. Suggesting they would only gives ammunition to some of the more venomous opponents as you may have noticed.

"""I am glad we did not join the Euro. Whilst not anti-European, I think it ridiculous to apply one economic model to 25 entirely different economies and what would it do to us if we had to run at the pace of the slowest performer, such as Albania? The ECB would tell us off if our growth was too high or fast. How ridiculous is that? If the others want to join the great experiment, let them but I think we are better off giving the Euro a wide berth."""


The euro was not created to unify the economies of Europe but to have more far reaching goals. It was created to offer an alternative currency to the petro-dollar. Too many businesses feel the global economy is an extension of the US economy and want the right to be free of that leash. The euro was designed to offer international business a stabil alternative to investing their earned money in markets other then the US and to give the EU the same subsidy the US gains from having the dollar as one of the world's reserve currency.

What the euro is and will do is encourage more nations to create currency unions that will eventually be strong and stabil enough for them to receive the same benefits the petro-dollar has given the US. Eventually, the world's wealth will be more evenly distributed and balanced, and in the control of a multitude of nantions, not just one.

The euro has allowed the EU countries to run stabil economies that would otherwise have resulted in double digit inflation and high interest rates. Much of the new buildings, highways, sanatized infrastructure, etc. you see in the EU countries both old and new don't come from taxes or "your money", but from the investments others outside the EU who with their earned euros invest in the EU. If there was no euro, the investments would be feeding the US market fully.

There are various investment options offered to purchasers of euro stocks and bonds that go into financing construction projects. The UK pound is not international enough to draw in the type of investments needed to fix your crumbling roads and hospitals. Your interest rates are high to draw in some investment but those investments have to be directed carefully into areas that result in a healthy return. UK roads and hospitals just don't qualify. I wouldn't be surprised if UK investment institutions don't "reinvest" in the Eurozone thus depriving the UK of needed upgrades on infrastructure.

Albania is not part of the EU, but they do use the euro as an underground currency. So does much of Russia and the Ukraine. The Kosovo region of Serbia (mostly Albanians) and the part of Serbia known as Montenegro use the euro only. They formerly used the deutschemark, but that changed to the euro in 2002 when the mark was withdrawn from circulation.

Prior to euroisation, the Italian, Greek, Spanish and Portuguese economies were ripe with high inflations, corruption and poverty. The stability and inward investment brought on by the euro has changed much of that. As you noted some of the results.

Countries like Germany and France don't appear to be prospering on the surface, but they still are. There is still too much rigidity in their labour laws that prevent the creation of low wage no benefit jobs that mimic third world economies that accounts for high unemployment. Low growth is due to businesses still paying high wages, generous vacation and holiday packages, reduced working hours, relaxed working conditions and more then generous unemployment benefits to the unemployed that you don't find elsewhere. Germans and French are competing against workers elsewhere willng to work long tiring hours for less pay. Thus one sees higher costs to consumers for goods and services, which result in bad attitudes towards the economy, reduced spending, and blame on the euro, and all summed up in low growth. Even if the euro would go away tomorrow, the problems would linger a long time unless there is a change in the German and French labour rules so the US/UK experience existed there too. The only difference would a much harsher life as the euro subsidy would end thus resulting in even high inflation and even greater slowing of the economy. The US/UK avoided much of this situation since in the Reagan/Thachter years much of the labour laws that were changed to the benefit of business did not result in protest to the changes. Germans and French workers have consistantly ressited the same changes taking place in their countries.

People like Tony Bennett either know the truth and cover it up or refuse to admit the truth because it would show the euro is not the problem. People like him want to blame the euro because they fear the euro. As long as they chose to be outside of it they know they will have to compete with it and it will make their life harder in the long term. Thus they think they can destroy it from their little bunker. The euro is here to stay.

But change is coming as labour laws are being made less rigid. Germany had a decrease in unemployment in April as some of the reforms have kicked in. Of course the level of confidence drops as people are upset that they have to give up some of the "luxuries" they were use to. Eventually they will adjust as others have too. Germany and France may also need to relax some of the laws dealing with credit, so that people earning less can still spend freely using borrowed money. The new subsidy will help secure the credit, as it does in the US and the UK via those high interest rates. The eurozone won't need high interest rates like the UK to secure the credit, the euro subsidy will do it for them.

For now being outside the euro may not be a problem, but eventually it will. Your currency won't be able compete against a subsidised currency. Look for problems to start between mid-2006 and 2010. This is the time the Iranians will start selling oil directly in euros thus subsidising the euro economy more robustly and the 10 new EU states will begin switching their currencies to the euro. The strain this all puts on the pound will be too much for UK economy to handle.

"""What I find alarming is the lack of democracy and the cost to us. I mean, while we have dirty hospitals and pot-holed roads here, Spain has brand-new, virtually unsused Autopistas (motorways) built with our money and Chirac has the nerve to suggest our rebate should be withdrawn - this from a man who expects the rest of us to prop up his idle farmers because he doesn't have the guts to tell them to face up to reality."""


If what you say about the sad state of the UK infrastructure is true, then it is the advantage of the eurozone that the UK is not part of the euro. Otherwise, huge amounts of the subsidy the eurozone receives from the euro's new position as a reserve currency would go to UK to fix up the mess, depriving the existing eurozone of funds needed to modernise their infrastructure. Germany especially benefits as much of the money flows into rennovations and building projects in the former DDR.

Maybe a good place for someone to take a trip to is eastern Germany and see how the cities have changed over the past 15 years. Then compare what you see there to what you have at home and then judge for yourself if the euro is working or not. Without the euro and the subsidy the eurozone receives for the euro being a reserve currency the German taxpayers alone would have had to pay for the entire restructuring of eastern Germany. That in itself would bankrupt Germany.

Financing today revolves around getting investors to fund projects, not taxpayers. This way the investor takes all the risks, and of course the gains when the project starts paying off. The most sure way to attract investors is to have your operating currency an international reserve currency. The creation of the euro was an absolute neccesity for the procurement of funds to modernise, prosper and stabilise the EU economy. The only people in the financial world who have a problem with the euro are those who have seen investments shift out of US/UK assets into euro assets, reducing the subsidy to these two markets. The US is witnessing a major slowdown in business and a rise in both interest rates and inflation to compensate.

Your high interest rates are meant to attract investment but for some reason it isn't or the money is being misappropiated. There may be other reasons why the pound may not be attracting the investment needed to modernise the UK infrastructure but whatever they are the fact remains that staying outside the euro is the main reason for the lack of money for modernising.

The UK's loss is the eurozone's gain.

Is that the biggest crock we've ever seen?

I am vehemently anti-EU (and extremely pro-Europe). I need not make comment on "Erin"s post as he's once again helped the anti-EU side more than my words ever will!

In response to someone from planet Earth (Stan) - yes, it irritates me when UKIP (or whoever) stand in areas where euro-sceptic Tories might win.

Sorry, Tony, I cannot support you on this one.

<<<It would be a very hefty price to pay just to think that leaving the EU would return Britain to using FFU. That in itself is another fantasy of the fringe parties.>>>

Very true. Leaving the EU would remove the major obstacle preventing the British government from completing metrication.

<<<It would be a very hefty price to pay just to think that leaving the EU would return Britain to using FFU. That in itself is another fantasy of the fringe parties.>>>

Very true. Leaving the EU would remove the major obstacle preventing the British government from completing metrication.

A point twicely made, Andy!

A point twicely made, Andy!


;-)

;-)

Although I cannot see such a move allowing "full metrication" (whatever that is).

I would suspect a more laissez faire attitude more in tune with proper British politics (the old fashion "non currupt" sort) than the "big state little people" one.

Barbados is a fine example of British democracy in action.

(Ho hum, should I make a prediction regarding an up and comming fib by mallet-boy, or let him let rip himself)

Tony said

"You have to offer voters the chance to vote for a party committed to such a policy. That's democracy."

Steve replied

"Yes, it irritates me when UKIP (or whoever) stand in areas where euro-sceptic Tories might win.

Sorry, Tony, I cannot support you on this one."

For a change, I'm with Tony on this one. Everyone should be able to vote for a party espousing their own views.

I would suggest that the problem is with the system, rather than the parties. First past the post favours the larger parties and a two party system. If (please no!!!!!!) the Veritas/UKIP vote does skyrocket, and England/Wales end up with a 4 party system, the UK govt may end up with a party recieving approx 18% of the vote, but only 9% of the seats or approx 16% of the vote but only 2% of the seats.

(Look at the overall Scottish results at this election for examples of this)

I would speculate that under a Single Transferrable Vote system, the Tories might have won Tony's constituency.....

I'm not saying that's a good thing though!