Labour confirm they have given up on Cornwall

It's just confirming what everyone in Cornwall suspected, but the Labour Party have today announced that they have given up any hope of winning an MP in Cornwall at the next general election. The real battle, as always, will be between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

It is unusual for any political party to make public their list of target seats - those they think they can gain at a general election. But today Labour did just that - listing 106 seats across the UK that they will be trying to add to their current total in 2015. It is almost certain that they won't win all of these of course and they wouldn't need all of them to form a majority in any case. But these are the seats they think they have a hope in.

But what stands out for me is that there are no Cornwall seats in the mix - and only one in Devon that they hope to add to the two they already hold in that county.

So despite claiming to be in with a chance in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle last time, Labour have now admitted that they cannot win there. That seat, like the other five, will remain a close battle between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Each party currently holds three of the MPs.

Tweet

From 'our man' to target man - how the Guardian has turned on David Milliband

For me, one of the most interesting moments of the general election campaign came towards the end. It was during a Nick Clegg visit in South London and he was ending in his usual style by conducting interviews with regional journalists. Not being particularly interested in yet more pics of Nick talking to a TV camera, I got back on the bus to edit my pictures. A minute later, a Guardian journalist also got on the bus. I don't think she realised anyone else was there and she started a call on her mobile. The call concerned the Labour leadership election and what she referred to as the need to get 'our man' elected. At first, I had no clue as to who she was talking to or who 'our man' was. But as the conversation went on, it was clear that she was talking to a work colleague and that 'our man' referred to David Milliband. At one point she slammed Ed Balls for briefing against 'DM'.

It was interesting that, even before the general election votes had been cast or counted, the Guardian were looking to the future of Labour beyond Gordon Brown and at least some of its staff were actively involved with the David Milliband campaign which was already in full swing.

Today, coincidentally just a few days before the results of that leadership election are announced, the Guardian has published a story which implies that David Milliband was consulted about interrogations which may have included torture.

Guido suggests that the paper may have held back on the story until it could do little damage to Milliband's chances of being elected. Whether that sort of thing happened or not is something that only those within Guardian HQ will know. But what is clear is that if David Milliband is to become Labour Leader on Saturday, he will not be starting with a clean slate and has managed to lose the outright support of one of the key Labour cheerleaders within Fleet Street. For all that the Guardian endorsed Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats at the election, it is most definitely a Labour supporting journal at heart. Maybe they have taken the gamble that it is Ed Milliband who has won and they are trying to mend fences, but I would imagine that he might consider that a bit late in the day.

Keep Cornwall Whole

Last night was the first meeting of the Keep Cornwall Whole campaign. This is the group which has come together to fight threats to create parliamentary constituencies which cross the Cornwall - Devon border.

The threat comes from the wording of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill which proposes that there should be a reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and that the number of electors in each seat should not vary by more than 5% from the average. Cornwall would be due about five and a half seats under the new numbers and both five seats and six seats would be well outside the 5% margin for error.

So the only answer would be to cross the border and have a 'Devonwall' seat. This is something that I and the vast majority of my colleagues oppose. We know that all three Lib Dem MPs oppose it, as do at least two of the three Cornish Tory MPs. Labour Leadership candidate David Milliband also gave his support to the campaign. Of course MK and many others also back the campaign too. Our campaign is very much a cross party one with all of Cornwall speaking together.

Our aim is to persuade the Government that the eastern boundary of Cornwall should be protected in law - alongside those of Scotland and Wales.

The Bill will be debated by MPs for the first time on 6th September. That debate will be on the principle of the changes - to introduce a fairer voting system and to reduce the number of MPs. On that, both the Lib Dems and Conservatives agree (and Labour agree with the voting system change of it). So for that reason there is unlikely to be much of a rebellion on that date. BBC Radio Cornwall's Graham Smith is therefore wrong to identify that as the key date.

The important debates will come when the Bill is debated line by line in committee and then in the House of Lords. It is there that those who back Keep Cornwall Whole will be seeking to make changes so that there are no Devonwall constituencies.

Phil Woolas and Zac Goldsmith update

The Electoral Commission has decided that the case of Zac Goldsmith's expenses merits a proper investigation that might last up to three months. It still doesn't mean he is guilty, but it appears to show that there are questions that need proper explanations.

In another move, the High Court has decided that there is most definitely a case to answer for former minister Phil Woolas. A special election court will sit in Oldham in September to decide whether his campaign leafets were so misleading about his Lib Dem opponent Elwyn Watkins that the election should be re-run.

The court will sit for five days from September 13th. The timing means that, if the court orders a re-run, it is likely to take place during the conference season.

UPDATE - I'm told that any result of the Phil Woolas case will need to be read by the Speaker on the floor of the House of Commons and so a by-election - if that is the decision of the court - would be unlikely to be held until after the House returns.

Seven questions for Zac Goldsmith

Following the questions raised by Channel Four News about Zac Goldsmith's election expenses and his subsequent denial of having done anything wrong, I have the following questions which he will presumably be able to answer without a problem:

Campaign jackets.

1. If you are serious in only charging a portion of the cost of the stickers to your campaign expenses, presumably you have all the stickers carefully stored away and they are in a fit state to be re-used. If not, can you explain why the full cost of any which are missing or damaged has not been included in your expense returns?

2. What has happened to the jackets themselves? If they have not been charged to your campaign expenses, what has happened to them? If you gave them to campaign supporters, presumably these cannot have been constituents or that would have been treating. So did you charge the people you gave them to and can you produce receipts?

Undelivered leaflets.

3. You claim that you bought and paid for 62,000 campaign leaflets which were not delivered. How does this waste of paper fit with your green credentials?

4. What have you done with the undelivered leaflets? Can you prove that they were not delivered?

Posters.

5. You apportioned £700 of the cost of your campaign posters to your local council colleagues. How do you justify this apportionment given that your image and name appeared on the posters and not those of your council colleagues?

6. Of the remaining sum, you have included less than one seventh of the cost in your election expenses. Presumably this means that these posters will be able to be used for a further six elections. Can you produce all the posters in a fit state to be used again or justify why you have not included the full cost of damaged or missing posters in your expense returns?

Trikes.

7. On Channel Four News you said that you had not declared the cost of trikes that you used in your campaign. How do you justify this decision? Were these vehicles which already belonged to individual campaign supporters and did you declare the running costs or depreciation of the vehicles? Or were these bought by your campaign or constituency association, in which case how do you justify your decision not to declare any portion of their purchase cost in your expenses returns?

I make no judgment that Mr Goldsmith has broken the law in respect of his election expenses and will happily publish or link to any statements he makes which answer the questions he poses. But, given the desire of the public to move towards cleaner politics, it is surely right that he should be able to justify in detail his accounting practices rather than simply make claims about what other candidates might or might not do.

Zac Goldsmith and the posters that will last 50 years - UPDATED

Hot on the heels of news that Scottish Tory MP David Mundell is being investigated by the Police over his election expenses comes a report by Channel 4 News that questions have been raised over the expenses of new Richmond Park Tory MP Zac Goldsmith.

The report claims that Goldsmith declared expenses for the short campaign (ie the 23 days leading up to polling day) of £10,783 - just £220 below the legal limit. There's nothing wrong with that. In order to maximise your chance of winning, a candidate will always try to spend as close to the limit as possible. But the report questions whether the real cost of the campaign wasn't actually a bit more.

In my experience the most damaging allegation is over Goldsmith's claim that a portion of the cost of his election posters should be attributed to Conservative local election candidates in his area. That would be entirely legitimate if the posters said 'Vote Conservative' or similar as he could argue that some of the benefit of these went to local candidates. Except that it is said that the posters carried his name and photo and therefore would have little benefit in promoting local candidates.

Goldsmith also claimed that much of the cost of the posters could be discounted as they could be used for other elections. This is a common tactic. A poster could - at least in theory - be used for more than one election. But claiming that they could be used for more than 50 years (ten elections) might be tough for him to prove.

Other claims concerned the use of 200 campaign jackets with 'I back Zac' on the back of them. Goldsmith has said that only the cost of the stickers should be attributed to his campaign expenses and has, once again, claimed that the stickers could be used for further elections. Perhaps it would be interesting to ask him to produce the reclaimed stickers and for him to show that they are in a fit condition to be used time and time and time again.

The final claim concerns leaflets which were ordered but not used. On this item, I think that Goldsmith is on firmer ground. If they did not contribute to his election campaign then they should not be counted. Proving that they were never delivered is a tough task. Perhaps Mr Goldsmith could produce the undelivered piles of leaflets to prove his case.

If his main opponent in the election - Lib Dem Susan Kramer - wants to challenge the result on the basis of overspending then she has only a limited time to do so. Mr Goldsmith's agent has stated that he believes they have scrupulously abided by the law.

UPDATE - The original details in this post were based on those listed on Channel Four's website. I have subsequently updated them and more details are on my later blogpost here.

£18.12 per vote!

BBC Radio Cornwall's Graham Smith has been doing some research on the amount spent by various candidates in Cornwall in the recent General Election.

One candidate in St Ives - Jonathan Rogers (Cornish Democrats) - spent £7,175.65 for 396 votes which is equivalent to £18.12 each. that figure doesn't include the £500 for a lost deposit.

I wonder if any candidate in the general election has a higher 'cost per vote'?

Dan raises second home voting with the Prime Minister

At today's Prime Ministers Questions, North Cornwall Lib Dem MP Dan Rogerson raised the issue of second home owners voting in Cornish elections.

David Cameron replied by promising that the relevant minister would meet with Dan to discuss what can be done to clarify and enforce the law on this issue.

The full text of the exchange is below:

Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD): Voting by non-resident home owners in regions such as Cornwall is becoming a contentious issue. Councils are not checking whether people are voting in two locations in the same election, and local residents are worried that sometimes election results might be skewed. Will the Prime Minister meet me, or invite one of his ministerial colleagues to do so, to discuss this issue?

The Prime Minister: I am very happy that one of my colleagues should have a meeting with the hon. Gentleman. It is important that we make sure that electoral registers are accurate. It is also important to recognise that it is an offence to vote at a general election in two different places. However, I think that there are problems with saying whether second home owners can vote. I think that a number of hon. Members might take rather a dim view, as some of them might not be able to vote in their own constituencies, but I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to have a meeting with the Minister responsible for electoral registration.

Options to avoid a 'Devonwall' constituency

Whilst the big political debate yesterday, and certainly most of the news coverage, focused on the announcement of the date of the AV referendum, the other significant can of worms that was opened up was the proposed reduction in the number of MPs from 650 to 600 - a proposal that the Conservatives have insisted on tying to the AV reform.

The first interesting point was the figure. The Conservatives argued in their manifesto for a 10% cut (ie to 585). So how come the figure of 600 has now been picked and how firm is the commitment of the coalition to it?

The second point is that only the two small Scottish constituencies (Western Isles and Orkney & Shetland) have been preserved. The other two notable island seats - Ynys Mon and the Isle of Wight - will find themselves being amalgamated (at least in part) with a section of the mainland.

The Government has suggested that the average size of the new constituencies will be 75,000 and that a margin of 5% will be allowed - giving approximate minimums and maximums of 71,250 and 78,750. UK Polling Report has had a go at trying to predict approximate boundaries for such a change.

But if equality of voter numbers is all, why should the two Scottish seats be treated as an exception?

Of course, there are some other tricky hurdles to overcome. The major one being the situation of the National Assembly for Wales. The seats there are tied by law to the Westminster constituencies and a reduction in Wales from the current 40 seats to the probable 30 might well cause viability problems for the Assembly. If the Government has to sort this out before the overall seat reduction can go ahead then it may lead to significant delays.

Labour's major argument yesterday was to ask about the significant number of people who are not registered to vote but are entitled to do so (estimated as 3.5 million). Labour claim that the most significant under-representation issues tend to be in Labour seats. They believe that the number of likely Labour seats will be unfairly cut. This is a major concern, but is a red herring as far as the proposal to reduce seat numbers is concerned. I believe that under-registration is a significant issue in most parts of the country and the Government needs to take action. The move to individual registration of electors could and should be the spur to significant effort in this regard.

Here in Cornwall, we currently have approximately 419,000 registered electors. If we hold on to six seats then that would mean an average seat size of 69,833 - outside the threshold range. If we reverted to the five constituencies that existed prior to the recent general election, then the average size would be 83,800 - again, outside the threshold range.

So there seems little option on the face of it except to have a cross-border Devon and Cornwall seat. Whether this is a North Cornwall and West Devon seat or a Plymouth West, Saltash and Torpoint seat, such a move would be hugely contentious and not at all popular with people in Cornwall - including myself.

What options might there be to avoid this?

- First up, a joint campaign by all of Cornwall's six MPs, together with Cornwall Council and the people of Cornwall to persuade the Government that they are simply wrong to consider abolishing the historic and cultural border of Cornwall. The demographic arguments are on our side in that Cornwall's population is increasing in comparison with other parts of the UK and so whilst our voter numbers might be outside the threshold range at the moment, they would be 'coming right' as time goes on.

- Second, to test the firmness of the 600 figure. If the Conservatives stuck to their original 10% cut in MPs proposal then it just about be possible for Cornwall to retain its borders and have five MPs. Alternatively, if the 600 figure were to rise to about 615, then the the threshold limits would allow for six Cornish seats to be retained.

- Third, to increase the threshold limits to 7%, rather than the current five. This would still allow for the proposed reduction in seat numbers and correct the greatest anomalies in Scotland and Wales, but would allow the Boundary Commission to have greater regard to community boundaries - including the borders of Cornwall.

- Fourth, to 'de-couple' the MP number issue from the AV referendum. The AV issue is pretty clear and could be introduced (if voters agree) on current boundaries. The reduction in the number of MPs is far more complicated and requires a substantial boundary review. If the Boundary Commission is instructed to complete their work in just 18 months (instead of the usual 4 years) then the finished product is likely to be less good and the ability of the public to have their say will be far less.

- Of course, there is one other option. If the Government clarified the law to exclude the registration of second home owners then I suspect that this would remove sufficient numbers from the Cornwall electoral register to allow five Cornish seats which easily fit within the threshold limits.

Let's be AV'ing it!

Nick Clegg today made a statement in the House of Commons about three significant shifts in our electoral system.

The first is to fix the date of the next election for May 7th 2015 - in other words to introduce fixed term parliaments with the proviso that they can still be ended early if two thirds of the House of Commons demands it or if a new government cannot be formed within two weeks of a no confidence motion.

The second is to reduce the number of MPs. I'll blog about that later.

The final announcement was to confirm that the AV referendum will be held on May 5th next year - giving the chance for the system to be implemented in time for the next general election.

I'll be happily supporting a move to AV as it means that more votes will count. It's not perfect and it is not a proportional system. But it does mean a huge change, especially for smaller parties. If you are a Green, MK or UKIP supporter, you have traditionally gone to the polls knowing that your party has almost no chance of winning. Should you still back them or should you vote tactically for a party that can win? I respect those who still stuck to their guns, but I suspect that many smaller party supporters succumbed to the barrage of 'wasted vote' leaflets that came through their door from the bigger parties.

The same is true even for the bigger parties in parts of the country. In Cornwall, Labour has no chance of winning a seat and many Labour voters (perhaps outside Camborne and Redruth) have got used to backing the Lib Dems as the only hope of a non-Tory MP. I'm happy that AV will mean that they can now vote Labour as their first preference in the knowledge that their vote will not be a wasted one so long as they choose between the Lib Dems and Conservatives (still the front runners) before they stop allocating preferences.

What I would hope we get in this referendum is a genuine debate on the facts. There are decent arguments for the retention for First Past the Post, but the proponents of no change seem determined not to make them. Daniel Kawczinski, apparently the leader of the FPTP group of MPs, was trying to make the claim that if he only cast a Tory vote he would be disenfranchised compared to someone who was less firmly committed to a single party as 'they would have more votes than him'.

What utter rubbish.

In a constituency such as his, the Tories are always going to be in the top two and so his decision to firmly side with the Conservatives and no one else will make no odds. His personal second preference would never come into play. And even if it did and he declined to name a second choice then that's his decision.

And then there are the Labour Leadership candidates. All campaigned in the general election on a platform backing AV. Yet now Andy Burnham and Ed Balls are trying to say they oppose the move. Such a pity they didn't say it at the time. Or perhaps they are simply posturing for Labour Party votes now?

I fervently hope (but am not holding my breath) that the media will try to hold reasoned debates on the issue and not simply invite the antis (or indeed the advocates of change) to spout half truths and lies without opposition.

And, incidentally, top marks to Iain Dale for rubbishing the arguments of those who want to shift the referendum date. Their aim is to try to have such a low turnout that they can claim there is no mandate for change.

Six Cornish general election marked registers 'missing'

Cornwall Council has admitted that six of the marked registers from the General Election are missing.

Marked registers are created in polling stations. When an elector turns up to vote, they are checked against the copy of the electoral register held in the polling station to make sure that they are entitled to vote. A mark is made against their name to show that they have been given a ballot paper.

Whilst the obvious reason for doing this is to make sure that nobody can vote twice, the marked registers are also used after the election for a number of reasons. The political parties use them to check who has voted and they are also used to help prevent fraud. For instance, if a person is known to have died shortly before polling day then the register can be checked to make sure that nobody voted in their name. The marked register can also be cross-referenced to ensure that someone who is legitimately registered at two locations only cast one ballot.

It is worth noting, of course, that whilst the marked register shows who has received a ballot paper, it does not show how a person voted.

There may be a number of reasons for a marked register to be missing. The Council's report (see Agenda item 8 here) on the subject suggests that they might have been put in the wrong container by the polling station staff. After the end of polling, staff have a list of what goes where. Some containers are sealed and can only be opened by court order. Others are documents for the returning officer to deal with after polling day and among these should be the marked register.

There are six missing marked registers in this case, covering one polling station each in the following Cornwall Council divisions:

- St Austell Bay
- Mount Charles
- Fowey
- St Teath
- Wadebridge East
- St Germans

The report on the missing registers was produced after I heard reports that some were missing and it will now be discussed at Friday's meeting of the Council's Electoral Review Panel. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate further on the reasons for them being missing, to apportion blame or to suggest what should happen until after that meeting.

Scope polling report - the wrong solution to a real problem

The charity Scope has called for online and text voting to allow people with disabilities access to voting. Their report highlights the fact that far too many polling stations are still inaccessible to many would be voters.

Scope has been running reports on the accessibility of voting for many general elections now and have rightly garnered a lot of praise for their work in this area. But whilst their aims are exactly right and the concerns they raise very worrying, their preferred solution would cause far more problems than it solves.

Too many polling stations in the UK are still in buildings which are not fully accessible. Even worse are temporary structures such as caravans which can be impossible to access if you have any mobility impairment. The solution - enable the voter to cast their ballot outside - is discriminatory and puts a lot of people off.

Some will suggest that the number of people involved is relatively small. In fact I don't think it is, but even so we should adopt the principle that every elector should have equal access to cast their ballot and that all reasonable means should be taken to help them do so.

So why not internet or text voting?

Both have been extensively trialled in the UK. But both were hugely expensive and, most importantly, did not raise turnout. Indeed, the hard evidence is that turnout actually dropped with 'e-enabled' voting in many areas. Security experts have raised the issue that they might be subject to fraud which, unlike with paper based ballots, could be impossible to trace or correct. And whilst few technical errors were found in the online voting trials, the text voting system was cumbersome and left many voters unsure as to whether their vote had counted or not.

I think that internet or text voting would raise more problems than they solve and would do little if anything to boost turnout. I think that they should be laid to rest, at least for the next ten years.

But that does not mean that Scope do not have a point and I am certain that action needs to be taken. I would like to see a requirement that all polling stations be fully accessible. The current 'all reasonable steps' clause is a wimp out. To help returning officers, they should have the power to use any public building and guidance on using private premises should be made clearer. There will still be some areas where problems remain and the danger is that returning officers will simply offer fewer polling places as a result - making the ballot more inaccessible to many.

My solution - consider allowing electors to cast their ballot in another polling station within the same ward or constituency where their designated polling station is not fully accessible. There would be no need for a polling station to hold different types of ballot paper and there could be a second ballot box for 'out of polling district' ballot papers.

This provision would only be needed where a polling place is not completely accessible and my experience tells me that this tends to be in remote areas where there is more than one polling station for the ward concerned. If there is a ward with only one station and that is inaccessible then I would suggest the returning officer is not trying hard enough.

In such cases, poll cards could be printed to indicate that the polling station is not fully accessible and the address of the nearest accessible station could be given as an alternative.

Thanks to Mark Pack for highlighting the report.

Council investigated just 18 possible cases of second home voting

As I blogged before, at today's full council meeting my colleague Jeremy Rowe asked a question about second home voters and how many cases the council were aware of during the recent general election.

Council Leader Alec Robertson replied and said that the council had investigated just 18 cases in the run up to the election.

That sounds to me like an implausibly low number. Either there was remarkable compliance with the law or the Council was not doing its job properly in making sure that only those eligible to vote actually did so.

The rules are clear. Only those who live permanently in an area may register to vote there. Second home owners may not do so. The only exceptions are students who genuinely live in two places for roughly equal periods of time.

What could the council have done to stop any abuse of the system? They could have checked the council tax register. Second home owners are entitled (wrongly in my view) to a discount on their council tax and are therefore registered as such. Any property which is registered as a second home should not have had any voters registered there.

Jeremy said in the meeting that he was aware of more than 18 cases in his own ward and with one Cornish seat being won by just 66 votes, it is entirely possible that a result could have been swayed by voters who should never have voted.

Cllr Robertson also claimed that it was not possible to find out who had voted more than once in the general election. The law states that, even if you are registered in more than one place, you may only vote once. It is in fact very possible by comparing the marked registers of the two registration addresses. This, however, is a very time consuming business and could realistically only happen where an individual case of illegal activity was suspected. The previous Labour Government set up a project called CORE - the Combined Online Register of Electors - which would have made the process simple. Unfortunately, as with some other anti-fraud measures, they failed to follow through with it.

Because of the implausibly low number in Alec Robertson's answer today, I have asked for an urgent meeting of the Council's Electoral Review Panel to investigate the matter more fully. If it is even remotely possible that the result of an election may be affected then Cornwall Council needs to take action quickly.

Challenging Election Results

Yesterday the Sunday Mirror reported that the new Conservative MP for Romsey, Caroline Nokes, had been having an affair with her agent. In itself, that news should be nobody's business but Mrs Nokes, her husband and the man involved. What makes this worthy of comment is that, during the election, Mrs Nokes signed a campaign group's pledge stating that extra-marital sex was wrong. My understanding is that her signature was then used to appeal to some of her electorate for votes.

If all the above is true, that means that Mrs Nokes campaigned using false promises to the electorate. In short, that she lied.

Her Lib Dem opponent, the former MP Sandra Gidley, is suggesting that she might apply to have the result of the election overturned on the basis of this lie.

In the past, cases of this sort were very rare. The law on whether a false statement could be grounds for overturning the result was unclear and the only way an action could ever succeed would be if the defeated candidate could find people who were prepared to state under oath that they voted for the winner on the basis of the false statement but would not have done if they had known the truth. Sufficient numbers were needed to overturn the majority. But the law was changed recently to allow a judge to set aside the result if false statements of significant magnitude can be proved.

But Mrs Nokes' case is not the only such instance. In Oldham East and Saddleworth, defeated Lib Dem Elwyn Watkins has claimed that former immigration minister Phil Woolas made false statements about him in his leaflets. The Conservative challenger in David Laws' Yeovil seat is also complaining that Mr Laws made statements about being 'clean' on expenses. No doubt there are others out there as well.

It is right that the degree of culpability and its likely effect should be judged on the facts of each case in a court of law. But the principle that an election can be overturned by a court on the basis of false statements should be made clear as soon as possible. The electorate needs to be protected from blatant falsehoods so that they can cast their votes in confidence or know that the result will be set aside.

This isn't a party political issue - as I have demonstrated above, winners from all three main parties have been accused.

Second Home Votes

My colleague Jeremy Rowe has tabled a question for next week's full council meeting asking how many second home owners in Cornwall cast votes in Cornwall in the recent General Election.

According to the Electoral Commission, a person is not entitled to register to vote (far less actually cast a ballot) simply because they own a property. In order to qualify, a home owner has to actually live in the property for the majority of the year. The only exceptions are service personnel and students. The latter genuinely live in two places and are allowed to register in both.

When it comes to casting a vote, no-one can cast more than one ballot in a general election. Those people who are genuinely entitled to be registered in two places can choose where they cast their vote, but it can only be in one place. With a paper based record system, there is no way of automatically checking on the day, but Cornwall Council can check against the second homes register (those properties where a second home council tax discount is claimed) to find out if anyone has registered to vote and should not have. By checking with other councils, they can find out if anyone has cast more than one vote.

We shall see on Tuesday whether any of Cornwall's election results (some very close) may have been affected by such votes.

Returning Officers Fees and Bonuses

Mark Pack has written an interesting article on the payments made to general election returning officers for their work. The issue arises because many returning officers are very well paid council chief executives who took their post knowing they would be likely to be returning officer. Should they therefore be paid up to £25,000 for their work on the election?

As ever, the facts are not as simple as the Telegraph might have us believe.

This is not payment for simply turning up at the count and reading out the results. Returning officers undertake a lot of work in the role and, in the case of a council chief executive, I would expect that this would be entirely in addition to their regular work. If they are too busy to do their day job because of election duties, then they certainly should not be getting the money.

It is also worth pointing out that many, if not most, returning officers do not take the whole payment themselves. In Cornwall, Council Chief Executive and Returning Officer Kevin Lavery is entitled to a payment of just under £20,000. But he is splitting this money with his team of officers who ensured that the elections ran smoothly - and quite right too.

The Telegraph is right on one thing however. Returning officers receive this money because they are in charge of a very large and potentially risky operation. If they fail to run this operation 100% effectively then it is they who should take the blame and they should certainly forfeit their payment as at least three of those who were in charge where problems occurred have done.

I'll leave the final word to John Turner, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators (and a consultant who helped Cornwall Council sort out its elections department, who said: "The whole question of returning officer fees needs to be reviewed and brought up to date. It is just another aspect of elections where we need to ask whether it is fit for purpose and appropriate in the modern age."

Electoral Commission states the bleeding obvious

The Electoral Commission has produced an initial report into what went wrong with voting procedures on May 6th.

They have found that 'at least' 1200 people were denied the right to vote despite being in a queue at a polling station at 10pm. They have also found that returning officers had not taken sufficient account of the likely time voters would take to cast their ballots - particularly in areas which also had council elections, had put too many electors into some polling stations and had cut back on staff and ballot papers in some cases.

The Commission is quite right to point out that returning officers had no option but to turn electors away if they had not been given their ballot paper by 10pm. That is the law and (apparently with the exception of Lewisham) they applied that correctly. The Commission is now saying that this law should be changed. In my opinion they are right to make this call. My beef with the Commission is that they have been overseeing elections in the UK and recommending changes for a number of years. Why on earth have they not made this recommendation before now? Whenever I conduct election observation missions overseas (and I know that their staff do so as well), I find that the countries I visit have a law that states that anyone queuing at close of polls is entitled to receive a ballot. It seems eminently sensible and I find it staggering that this small but important rule change has not been recommended by the Commission before now.

The other failings appear to be the fault of either cost-cutting, bad planning or incompetence by election officials at a local level. Of course the majority of the blame for these failings needs to rest with those local staff and returning officers. But what is going to be done about it. In cases where the number of people disenfranchised is greater than the electoral majority, there is a slim but real chance that a (very expensive) court case could order a re-run. In other cases we are told that disenfranchised electors may be offered financial compensation. I would like to see two other course of action as well:

- in cases where there were the greatest levels of official failure the police need to conduct an investigation on the grounds of breach of official duty. This is a recognised offence for people such as returning officers but it is hardly ever used, even where the fault was blatant. Of course, I don't know the complete facts in any of these cases and would not wish to pre-judge any investigations. But there have to be investigations rather than simply promises to learn lessons.

- the Commission must also take some of the responsibility. As mentioned before, whilst they do not have control over elections, they have been monitoring and making recommendations for some time now. If that role is to mean anything, it should be to spot things like cost-cutting and take steps to avoid it rather than just sit on the sidelines bemoaning a Victorian system.

I do not subscribe to the view that the Electoral Commission should be abolished. I think it has a substantial role to play. But the current Commission has been happy to sit back and offer polite comment far too often when they should be tearing the failing system apart and demanding that Parliament legislates.

To regain credibility, the Commission must now draft a complete Bill with all the changes it believes are necessary and then create hell until Parliament passes it. They must also up their game when it comes to identifying risk. Go and watch a few more elections overseas and learn from what they do differently and come back with lessons so that the rules are changed before the next catastrophe.

Have we entered Versailles territory with the Tories?

So it appears (at 4.39pm) that Labour are admitting defeat and GB is moving out of Downing St. Lib Dem sources are saying that the talks with Labour never really got anywhere. My sources (hmmm - sounding like journo now) are telling me that whilst the Labour peers in the room (Mandelson and Adonis) were fairly serious about a deal, the MPs (Harman and Balls) had bad body language and were more concerned about their own leadership election than anything else. Could the Lib Dems have done a deal with Labour of they didn't feel that the Labour hearts were in it? I doubt it. And when every single vote would matter, would Brown have been happy to stay in the Commons on the backbenches turning up to every single vote?

And so the only deal that remains is with the Tories. Except that the Tories are now worried that they have over-committed. Whilst they can't renege on what was said publicly (including the AV referendum), they can seek to re-negotiate what wasn't and this might scupper the whole deal.

From a Lib Dem perspective, there is also the prospect of a Versailles type situation. After the First World War, the allies inflicted a punitive reparations deal on Germany at the Treaty of Versailles. Such was the resentment among the Germans at this deal that they sought every opportunity to get out of it and there was a huge resentment created at all things English, French and American. This attitude, in turn, gave Hitler a basis on which to start building support - which eventually led to his being able to take power.

I'm not, of course, comparing the Conservatives or any single member of the Party to Hitler or the Nazis in any way. But if the Tory backbenchers and grassroots feel that the Lib Dems have won too good a deal then the antipathy towards us might grow exponentially and this could hasten the breakdown of any deal - and resentment of David Cameron for giving away the farm.

Of course the Lib Dems want to get as good a deal as possible. After all, we will have to buy in to the majority of Tory manifesto promises under any coalition deal. And it is right that we should seek to get as much of our manifesto accepted as possible. But too good a deal might also bring more trouble for the future.

"We don't think it's an issue" - the scandal of voters denied

Last night many hundreds of people across the country were denied the ability to cast a vote in the general and local elections. Let's make no bones about it. It's a scandal which mars yesterday's election.

I've got a fair amount of experience with different types of election. Before being elected, I worked as an election expert for the Electoral Reform Society and monitored countless elections around the country, including the electoral fraud cases in Birmingham, Hackney and so on. I also led the UK election monitoring missions eight times, including to Bulgaria, Serbia and Guyana.

In every single one of the countries I have monitored in - about a dozen in all - the law states that those queuing at close of polls are allowed to receive and cast their ballots. Thus any problems in the administration of elections do not disenfranchise voters. To me, that is the fairest system and I don't see why the law in the UK is different.

But different it is, and one of the main tenets of monitoring elections is that you should see that the exisiting law is applied correctly.

So we have to look at what went wrong in Sheffield, Newcastle, Manchester and so on. The returning officer in the last of these is quoted by the BBC as saying that they don't see it as an issue as the number of people disenfranchised would not be enough to overturn any General Election result. That may be legally true, but it's a cop out of the worst order. Confidence in our electoral system demands that the process is transparent, fair and effectively administered. It seems clear to me that returning officers and councils let down voters in a number of areas yesterday.

To those who argue that the polls are open from 7am to 10pm and voters should have gone earlier, I say this. As polls are open until 10pm, it should be a resonable assumption for a voter to be able to turn up at any moment before that time and be able to vote. On election day all parties keep campaigning until the moment the polls close. I have persuaded electors to go out in their dressing gowns at 9.55pm because their vote might make all the difference. In the future, parties may face the response 'why should we put ourselves out when we are not certain to be able to vote at all'.

Did councils and returning officers try to cut costs on this election by not employing enough staff or printing enough ballot papers? The inquiry should find out. But the first duty of a returning officer is to conduct elections properly and they are semi-detached from the rest of the council in order to give them the freedom to do so. Failing in their jobs leaves them open to a legal charge of breach of official duty. I hope that if any returning officers are found to have failed spectacularly then prosecutions are seriously considered.

Yesterday's turnout was a mere 65% on average. Yes it was up by 5% on last time, but such a rise - at a time when electors knew that this could be a game changing election - was hardly unexpected. Election officials should have been able to cope and it is a cause of much concern that they were not.

In short, if councils, the incoming Government or the Electoral Commission think that yesterday's fiasco was not a serious problem then they clearly have little understanding of the public's shaky confidence in our democracy. The promised inquiry should begin immediately and be prepared to ask awkward questions and come up with uncomfortable results.

Election 2010 - The results big picture

Freaky Friday. There seemed little rhyme or reason to a lot of the results. The Tories clearly did quite well, but there will be huge reservations about the fact that they failed to seal the deal. If Gordon Brown is really as unpopular as they claimed, why couldn't they pick up enough seats to win an overall majority?

For Brown, the result was not nearly as bad as it might have been. Sure there were a lot of losses and there seems little credibility to his desire the hang on in there. As Guido puts it, he is looking increasingly like a squatter. But a large number of Labour MPs in vulnerable seats hung on - particularly cabinet members. And Labour - for all that they fell to one of their lowest shares of the vote in living memory - are still the second largest party.

For the Lib Dems it was hugely disappointing. Cleggmania failed to be translated into the votes that were predicted and the Party actually lost seats. But there are still huge positives. I truly believed that without Nick Clegg - and without the leadership debates - we would have been squeezed into oblivion. There were some stonking results. Take Redcar - a massive 18% (or so) swing ffrom Labour. And we picked up more than just the solitary predicted seat from the Tories too. And yet. The number of seats lost by a comparatively small number of votes is very disappointing. For ages last night whenever there was a close result we seemed to come out on the wrong side of it. Sheffield Central, Camborne Redruth, Watford and so on. In London in particular, we were on the wrong end of a number of close calls as Labour performed incredibly well. Ed Fordham came third in a true three way marginal and it was only really hanging on in the two Sutton seats and Sarah Teather's victory in Brent that were cheer points in the capital.

Overall - incumbency mattered both ways. Those tainted by the expenses scandal lost out and those cleared of any wrongdoing tended to do well.

The increase in turnout was very welcome, but how many of those who bothered to turn out, particularly younger voters, will end up confused at the less than clear cut outcome? And what will be done about so many people being denied a vote? It seems to me that a 'review' will apear to be sweeping the matter under the carpet. Only if a court case happens and is successful (dubious given the strict rules) will people feel that their being denied a vote has been taken seriously.

And now?

Nick Clegg will win plaudits from all except Gordon Brown for sticking to his promise to allow the party with the most seats and votes to have the chance to govern. Morally there should be no right for Brown to stay in Number 10 and the seat maths make any Lib Lab deal doomed to failure anyway. Such a deal may be the only real chance of full blown PR but I worry that the voter backlash at a subsequent election would be too great.

David Cameron this afternoon claimed to offer an olive branch to Nick Clegg. He said that he was prepared to govern as a minority if needs be but would like to tie up a Lib Con coalition if possible. But his terms (and I accept that these were simply an opening gambit) are simply not acceptable to the Lib Dems. He seemed to say that we would have to take the bulk of their manifesto. When it came to what we could demand, Cameron simply listed those areas where the twon parties agree in any case. And on voting reform, Cameron declared himself willing to set up a commission to review matters. That is what Blair offered back in '97. At least Blair also said that a referendum would follow, even if this promise turned out to be worthless. Whilst Cam might be prepared to offer real PR, much of his party would not. Dan Hannan was on the BBC shortly afterwards and made it clear that electoral reform does not always mean voting reform. And I suspect that the majority of Tories would want to limit reform to equalising seat size and, perhaps, a referendum on AV after another election.

There will be no response from the Lib Dems to this offer other than to note it until at least after tomorrow's Parliamentary Party and Federal Exec meetings. I suspect that Nick Clegg will be asked by the Party to talk to the Tories to see how far they will be prepared to go. But I strongly doubt that a deal will prove possible.

That, in itself, is not a bad thing. For the Lib Dems to retain credibility we need to stick up for our manifesto. If the Tories accept enough of it then a deal could be done. But if not we can simply allow them to govern as a minority. The Tory tactic will be to try to blame failures on Lib Dems unwilling to accept responsibility, but this can be countered. And, in any case, no coalition would sit more easily with the party membership.

By being clear that it is Cam who should move into Number 10, Nick Clegg has bought both the Lib Dems and the whole political establishment time. A deal does not need to be done immediately - and it should not be. What matters is that the politicians get some sleep and realise that we are living in a changed world. Just as Alex Salmond is doing in Scotland, a minority administration can survive.

A final thought - for all that the Lib Dems won some spectacular ccontests, my winner of the night has to be Naomi Long for the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland.