It is not remotely unusual for politicians to claim, as the three party leaders did yesterday, that this election is the most important “for a generation”, or “of recent times”, and even “ever”. Indeed, it would be a most refreshing change if a party leader were to admit that not much would alter for better or worse irrespective of who was entrusted with power. What is unusual, by stark contrast, unknown since the passage of the Ballot Act of 1872 and the Corrupt Practices Act of 1883, is for there to be a sizeable number of constituencies in mainland Britain (Ulster has long had its difficulties) where it is possible that the votes recorded will have been rigged or distorted.
There will be plenty of time over the next few weeks to analyse the policies and the competing claims of the main parties. In the aftermath of the Birmingham postal vote scandal, however, and scandal is if anything an understatement, those responsible for the conduct of elections in this country have to concentrate their minds as to how to prevent another serious abuse of democracy. Deeds must be done before May 5 and a more profound overhaul of postal balloting should be a priority of the next incumbent in Downing Street. It is an outrage that reckless ministers and a reckless Government allowed such corruption despite repeated warnings that the system was fundamentally flawed.
It is worth recalling what occurred in Birmingham. Astonishingly inadequate provisions in legislation were exploited to allow vast numbers of ballot papers to be sent to a solitary address; electors were then compelled to back the Labour Party. If they failed to perform that task voluntarily, the blatant use of correction fluid was employed. Senior councillors were at the heart of this scam and it beggars belief that other important Labour leaders in the city and elsewhere had not the slightest idea what might be happening. Heads should roll among those who hold office in Birmingham and should have tumbled inside Whitehall as well.
The real victims here — apart from the democratic process itself — were highly vulnerable people: Asian women. There has been an intolerable political correctness around this question which implies that it is not for outsiders to dispute how a community might chose to organise itself for the purpose of voting in elections. Oh yes it is. The block vote does not exist in British political contests and it should not be allowed to come in via a blind eye being turned to allegedly “ethnic” customs. This is patronising nonsense. It also ignores the warnings by numerous Asians in Birmingham about inevitable fraud. This crime, for that is what it certainly was, must never be repeated.
Alas, it might be. The deterrent effect of the West Midlands saga might persuade some disreputable souls not to attempt to cheat again but there is no guarantee that the election will be clean. It requires returning officers and those who work for them to use all the powers at their disposal and to refuse to accept ballot papers where there is the suspicion that they have been tainted. In a similar spirit, the total votes cast by postal ballot should be tallied and retained separately from the main count so that it is then possible to calculate if the mailed votes received in any seat won the contest for one side or the other. That knowledge would be the basis for dispute resolution after the election.
Once the next Parliament assembles, there should be an all-party agreement that the law endorsed in 2001 should be repealed and replaced with one that guards against fraud more vigilantly. There was a decent argument in favour of relaxing some of the old provisions, many of which dated back to the Victorian era, but also a mistaken sense that all-postal ballots were the future of elections. A future that would permit electoral malpractice more familiar to the likes of Zimbabwe than Britain is, though, not one worth having. Large numbers of ballots must never be dispatched to a single person, nor to a single property.
It should be perfectly possible to make it easier for citizens to enjoy the relative flexibility of voting by post without almost inviting misbehaviour. If ministers think that the current arrangements strike that balance, then, as the admirable Richard Mawrey, QC, the judge who presided over the Birmingham investigation with resolve and vigour, put it on Monday, they are in a “state not simply of complacency but denial”. The 2001 legislation has not a shred of credibility. Nor do those who would not listen when the Electoral Commission, this newspaper, numerous local organisations and their civil servants told them they were taking risks with democracy.
It is entirely correct to be concerned about the level of electoral turnout in Britain and to look for appropriate means of trying to increase it. It is to be hoped that participation this time will exceed the 59.4 per cent witnessed four years ago. There is a straightforward move that would assist that cause, one that can be implemented at a stroke and might obviate the need for some postal voting. It is to switch the day on which we hold elections.
The general election will occur on a Thursday for reasons of historical accident, not rational design. Before 1918, they were held over several successive weekends. Between 1918 and 1935 they took place on a Saturday, a Tuesday, a Wednesday and on a Thursday. After 1935, for no compelling logic, they became stuck on Thursdays. A working day is inconvenient for many electors. It would be sensible to vote on a Saturday or a Sunday, providing more time for the casting of ballots and ensuring that voting is more of a family affair.
The Prime Minister asserted yesterday that elections were about “values”. One would have thought that the principle that elections should be free and fair in every seat was an exceptionally worthwhile value. It is a shameful disgrace that on this polling day — May 5, 2005 — there is the danger that this will not necessarily happen. All sides should pledge to take action.
