|
|
The postal fiasco
John Nicholson, RESPECT national executive (p.c.)
There are two overall political points to make about
comprehensive postal voting this year.The
first is to understand where it comes from - New Labour's desire to
increase the voting figures in the hope that (particularly in the
north west) it would mean the BNP would not get a euro seat. They also
hoped it would protect Manchester for Labour and possibly dislodge
Liverpool from the Liberals (on the basis that a non-participatory
voting system would work in New Labour's favour, being as they now
have next-to-no activists willing to work for them (see Eric Illsley
MP's comments on this in Yorkshire - along the lines of a party needs
members!). The converse of this is that the liberals opposed the
postal vote exercise, particularly in the north west, because they
thought it would deprive them of Liverpool. (I am not clear what has
happened in Birmingham, where I thought there wasn't postal voting,
and yet where the Liberals are accusing Labour of malpractice from the
highest level in Labour gaining votes?)
the second point is - and we should say
this loud and clear - postal voting does not increase participation.
It increases (if they are lucky) the voting figure. It reduces
electoral activity and reduces the election day to a non-event. It is
less interesting even than the Saturday lottery, where at least you
see last minute queues to get a ticket (not that I am recommending
further directions towards regressive taxation, which is what the
lottery represents, just that the election has become even less of an
involving experience than it ever was). and it means that the media is
more responsible for the election result - people are likely to be
influenced by what they read and see on TV (hence the rise of UKIP,
and arguably also the BNP will not have suffered, as the liberal press
have given them far more uncritical coverage than say respect or even
the Greens). For all the reasons that the left has correctly opposed
postal ballots in union decisions, we should oppose postal ballots in
general and local elections. We should demand - and work practically
for - participatory democracy and practical action. These should
influence our electioneering, not tactics on how to work round the
government, local government and post office bureaucracies.
A t
this latter level, of the administration of the postal ballot, there
are several more points to make. The first is that this year was a
nonsense from the start. Local town halls, in fairness to them, were
not ready, because the Lords hadn't approved the scheme until
literally almost too late. Councils in Manchester and Trafford were
unable to give out information to political parties and did not know
what to do if they suddenly found themselves having to shut libraries
and schools in order to put polling stations there. the school
timetables had all been worked out on the basis of postal voting.
H aving said
this (the one defence local authorities could have) the process
adopted and the practical implementation were both a farce. and the
cost will be felt by council tax payers across the northern boroughs
(yet to be quantified, though some sensible parliamentary questions
would not go amiss - or even some sensible local councillor
questions). It has been such a farce that most people who have been
opinion-polled so far (however unscientifically) agree that it
shouldn't be the way to proceed. The initial explanatory leaflets were
not easy to read and had little evidence of help for those who don't
have English as their first language. The follow-up voting package
made an ikea assembly instruction leaflet look like it could actually
produce a set of shelves.
People genuinely
could not work out which ballot paper to put in which envelope, which
envelope had to go in which other envelope, and which bit to leave
showing through the window. Instructions to make the "barcode" visible
did not assist people who did not know what a "barcode" was. It is
impossible (see my anti-prediction
prediction for more on this) to generalise what effect this had.
Did it increase spoilt returns or just deter returns? Did the
combination of euro and local increase the voting or did the absence
of information that you could just fill in one form and ignore the
other actually decrease the overall level? Whatever the truth of this,
the anticipated doubling of voting (that postal systems were supposed
to produce) did not deliver. The overall quoted increase of about 13%
is not comparing like with like - the euro turnout last time was
abysmal, so its not a real comparison on that, and the local turnouts
varied (and you would need council by council figures to work out
something sensible here). What we do know is that trafford council had
a postal ballot at the last local election and scored the "massive"
50% (yes, that's just half the population). This time they got just
40%. So much for increased voting as a justification.
B ut the most
significant allegations are about coercion. The requirement was for a
"witness" to sign the (to be separated) part of the ballot paper. now
in general understanding in this country, getting a witness (for say a
passport) involves someone you dont know too well or who is a
responsible member of the community (like a judge!). There was limited
explanation that the witness for voting could be anyone. Yes, thats
anyone. having said that, there was also the problem that the witness
had to put their own name and address down on the form. People not
registered at a particular address (or still preferring agencies such
as the council tax office not to know what their address is) would
prefer not to declare this. Whatever the rights and wrongs or logic of
this requirement, the reality is that established local figures (such
as MPs, councillors, and community leaders - supporting particular MPs
and councillors) were able to sign loads of forms on people's behalf.
Don't tell me they didn't influence the way the people voted. Its like
giving someone a lift to the polls (remember that way of working?).
You could give someone a lift who then, perversely, told you they had
voted for the other lot. but you didn't generally find that was the
result.
These allegations will run and run. i
expect legal challenges, especially where figures were tight. And then
there were all the distribution mistakes. Stockport and Rochdale
exceeded themselves in the north west, in printing the wrong forms and
sending them to the wrong places. Reprinting will have cost more, as
will council staff overtime to deliver leaflets personally to try (and
fail) to meet the (legislative) deadline. back to the law again - and
the cost to local council tax payers. Bolton managed to cock up one
ward (paradoxically the one in which the local swp/respect member had
"volunteered" to stand as a local council candidate (this was a result
of the turn to local elections, following the turn to not fighting
local elections, following the turn to.....). so the council had to
rush to set up polling stations after all.
However, in
amidst all the administrative, bureaucratic, financial and sheer
lunatic aspects of the postal voting, don't let us forget that these
are still not the main point. What we need politically is an open,
participatory, democratic system of elections and electioneering - and
we should continue to campaign for this, politically, whatever the
strength of our analysis of the maladministration of the postal voting
system as seen this time. Our criticisms of the latter should not lead
to the perverse conclusion that a "better-managed" postal voting
service would increase take-up by "election consumers".
June 2004 |
|
|
|