Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,689 
|
Post by Jack on Oct 25, 2016 21:53:13 GMT
Who out of the following do you prefer? Ruth Davidson Jeremy Corbyn Nick Clegg Alex Salmond My avatar should answer that question for you.  |
|
|
|
Post by mandyrichards on Nov 9, 2016 18:43:24 GMT
CAN ANY OF YOU ASSIST WITH EVIDENCE FOR AN ELECTION PETITION?!!
Dear all
I hope you don't mind this unsolicited enquiry.
I'm a teacher, youth worker and journalist and I stood in this year's London Assembly Elections for the Labour Party in the West Central constituency. It was a great campaign and for the second time running I massively reduced the Tory vote making an unwinnable seat winnable as I did in Havering & Redbridge in 2012 when I reduced the Tory majority from 40,000 to just 4,000
However, I have submitted an Election Petition re: West Central London Assembly Result. The main contention of the case is that in West Central, the overall result demonstrated an 80% shortfall in increased voter turnout when compared with results across all other constituencies in the London Assembly Region. In real terms the average rise in turnout across the 14 constituencies in London was 25,648 votes. In West Central the rise was just 3,902. More than 20,000 fewer votes. The election was lost by 14,564 votes.
At the Pre-Trial hearing on July 26 2016 the Court agreed there is a case to answer, I'm therefore taking the case forward. The trial date is set for 8 December 2016 and is scheduled to last for two days. In the first instance I would like to commission the appropriate expertise in advance of that regarding Psephological Examination of the polling data for this constituency.
Depending on the outcome I would then like to invite that expert to be one of the witnesses from whom oral evidence is sought. Can any of you get back to me asap to confirm whether you might be available for this commission and potentially to be available on either 8th or 9th December to give evidence as per the Commissioner's instruction.
The venue for the Trial is:
Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP
Feel free to contact me directly by phone. text or email. I very much look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Mandy
________________________________________________
Mandy Richards
London Assembly Candidate 2016
m: 07941630164
e: mandymarierichards@gmail.com
|
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Nov 9, 2016 20:13:38 GMT
Here is some pro bono advice - if that is the extent of your case you will be laughed out of court and end up costing yourself a significant amount of money.
As a start, have you taken into account the change in electorate size? The electorate in Westminster fell by 13% between Dec 2011 and Dec 2015, so it is hardly surprising the absolute number of votes cast didn't increase very much. You need to be looking at percentage turnout rather than absolute turnout.
2000 - West Central turnout 30.9%, London turnout 32.6%
2004 - West Central turnout 32.9%, London turnout 37.0%
2008 - West Central turnout 48.5%, London turnout 45.3%
2012 - West Central turnout 39.2%, London turnout 37.5%
2016 - West Central turnout 45.0%, London turnout 45.6%
So sometimes the turnout in West Central is a bit less than London as a whole, sometimes it is a bit more. Different candidates will appeal to different parts of London. In my psephological opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything unusual about the results in this constituency.
|
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 9, 2016 21:25:11 GMT
CAN ANY OF YOU ASSIST WITH EVIDENCE FOR AN ELECTION PETITION?!! Dear all I hope you don't mind this unsolicited enquiry. I'm a teacher, youth worker and journalist and I stood in this year's London Assembly Elections for the Labour Party in the West Central constituency. It was a great campaign and for the second time running I massively reduced the Tory vote making an unwinnable seat winnable as I did in Havering & Redbridge in 2012 when I reduced the Tory majority from 40,000 to just 4,000 However, I have submitted an Election Petition re: West Central London Assembly Result. The main contention of the case is that in West Central, the overall result demonstrated an 80% shortfall in increased voter turnout when compared with results across all other constituencies in the London Assembly Region. In real terms the average rise in turnout across the 14 constituencies in London was 25,648 votes. In West Central the rise was just 3,902. More than 20,000 fewer votes. The election was lost by 14,564 votes. At the Pre-Trial hearing on July 26 2016 the Court agreed there is a case to answer, I'm therefore taking the case forward. The trial date is set for 8 December 2016 and is scheduled to last for two days. In the first instance I would like to commission the appropriate expertise in advance of that regarding Psephological Examination of the polling data for this constituency. Depending on the outcome I would then like to invite that expert to be one of the witnesses from whom oral evidence is sought. Can any of you get back to me asap to confirm whether you might be available for this commission and potentially to be available on either 8th or 9th December to give evidence as per the Commissioner's instruction. The venue for the Trial is: Westminster City Hall, 64 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QP Feel free to contact me directly by phone. text or email. I very much look forward to hearing from you. Regards Mandy ________________________________________________ Mandy Richards London Assembly Candidate 2016 m: 07941630164 e: mandymarierichards@gmail.com How does any of that constitute evidence for an election petition? On what grounds? |
|
|
|
Post by mandyrichards on Nov 14, 2016 8:03:13 GMT
Here is some pro bono advice - if that is the extent of your case you will be laughed out of court and end up costing yourself a significant amount of money. As a start, have you taken into account the change in electorate size? The electorate in Westminster fell by 13% between Dec 2011 and Dec 2015, so it is hardly surprising the absolute number of votes cast didn't increase very much. You need to be looking at percentage turnout rather than absolute turnout. 2000 - West Central turnout 30.9%, London turnout 32.6% 2004 - West Central turnout 32.9%, London turnout 37.0% 2008 - West Central turnout 48.5%, London turnout 45.3% 2012 - West Central turnout 39.2%, London turnout 37.5% 2016 - West Central turnout 45.0%, London turnout 45.6% So sometimes the turnout in West Central is a bit less than London as a whole, sometimes it is a bit more. Different candidates will appeal to different parts of London. In my psephological opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything unusual about the results in this constituency. In response to your reply, the case has already been through pre-trial and the Commissioner clearly believes there is a case to answer given there are a number of reasons why the results may prove inaccurate that are currently under investigation. Hence the progression of the case to Trial. There is a marked discrepancy as outlined that is wholly inconsistent with comparative results across London Boroughs. I'm not looking for advice on disproving the case therefore and may I say that your dismissive tone is unhelpful in this matter as is the lack of breadth in your psephological analysis of voter behaviour. Thanks Mandy |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2016 8:48:57 GMT
Here is some pro bono advice - if that is the extent of your case you will be laughed out of court and end up costing yourself a significant amount of money. As a start, have you taken into account the change in electorate size? The electorate in Westminster fell by 13% between Dec 2011 and Dec 2015, so it is hardly surprising the absolute number of votes cast didn't increase very much. You need to be looking at percentage turnout rather than absolute turnout. 2000 - West Central turnout 30.9%, London turnout 32.6% 2004 - West Central turnout 32.9%, London turnout 37.0% 2008 - West Central turnout 48.5%, London turnout 45.3% 2012 - West Central turnout 39.2%, London turnout 37.5% 2016 - West Central turnout 45.0%, London turnout 45.6% So sometimes the turnout in West Central is a bit less than London as a whole, sometimes it is a bit more. Different candidates will appeal to different parts of London. In my psephological opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything unusual about the results in this constituency. In response to your reply, the case has already been through pre-trial and the Commissioner clearly believes there is a case to answer given there are a number of reasons why the results may prove inaccurate that are currently under investigation. Hence the progression of the case to Trial. There is a marked discrepancy as outlined that is wholly inconsistent with comparative results across London Boroughs. I'm not looking for advice on disproving the case therefore and may I say that your dismissive tone is unhelpful in this matter as is the lack of breadth in your psephological analysis of voter behaviour. Thanks Mandy I also have some pro bono advice: Mate you're a lunatic. |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 14, 2016 10:07:48 GMT
That's a bit harsh. mandyrichards I appreciate that you were not looking for advice on what is wrong with your case, however you are not going to get any advice on how to win your case, let alone anyone prepared to come along and help you fight it from people here af they do not think your case has any meriit. The reasons for this are twofold. Firstly years of combined experience lead us to the default position that people trying to overturn election results in the courts are on a hiding to nothing. The times when this has been successful are vanishingly small. It may be unfair but that is going to be the gut feeling of anyone here I suspect. Secondly the information you have provided is really not enough to even start to overcome this prejudice. Now we like chatting about things here, and if you give us some more meat to chew on we doubtless will, and in observing it you may find something helpful to you in your case, or more likely bring you to the conclusion that you would be better saving your time and money. If you would like that we could do with some answers to the questions posed earlier what actually are the grounds for the petition, for which the alleged failure of electorate growth is given as evidence. What are the percentage changes in electorate, rather than absolute numbers for the seats concerned |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 14, 2016 11:31:41 GMT
Mandy - here are some facts that you might like to consider. Greatkingrat has already pointed out that the overall turnout rate in the West Central constituency was up more or less in line with the London norm. Your contention is that the actual increase in the numerical vote was lower in this constituency than in others and this is somehow suspect. It is true enough that in London overall the total vote cast in constituency ballots increased from 2,207,677 in 2012 to 2,614,912 in 2016 representing an increase of 18%. In West Central the numbers increased from 146,386 to 153,321 - an increase of 4.7% Give that it has already been shown that turnout of eligible voters increased from 39% to 45% then it is clear that the low relative increase in the numerical vote was a result of a lower electorate than of lower participation by registered voters. So are you suggesting that there has been some foul play in terms of suppressing the numbers of registered voters? Its probably worthwhile to break down the area a bit to see how the pattern varied in different areas. In the three boroughs involved there was an increase of 8.7% in Hammersmith & Fulham, 5.5% in Westminster and 4.1% in Kensington & Chelsea, so at a borough level the differential levels of increase may be seen to have been to Labour's advantage (since H&F voted Labour and the other two boroughs did not) To look in more detail though at ward level | H&Fpostals | 16.9% | | Fulham Reach | 11.5% | | Askew | 11.0% | | Ravenscourt Park | 10.0% | | Sands End | 9.3% | | College Park and Old Oak | 8.8% | | Munster | 8.4% | | Shepherds Bush Green | 8.1% | | Hammersmith Broadway | 7.4% | | Wormholt and White City | 6.6% | | Palace Riverside | 5.8% | | Avonmore and Brook Green | 3.9% | | North End | 3.5% | | Parsons Green and Walham | 3.3% | | Addison | 2.8% | | Fulham Broadway | 2.5% | | Town | 0.8% |
There isn't a very clear pattern here though in general terms the safest Tory wards (Palace, Town, Parsons Green) showed a somewhat lower than average increase and the strongest Labour wards (College Park, Shepherds Bush) showed an average or above average increase. There certainly isn't any indication of votes being suppressed in the more Labour parts of the borough here. In Kensington & Chelsea direct ward comparisons are not possible due to ward boundary changes. However if we take the 7 (previously 6) wards North of Notting Hill Gate and those South of it we can compare. In the largely Labour voting North Kensington area, actual turnout was up by 11.6% against 5.3% in the Southern wards (and a 5% fall in the total postal votes) The figures from Westminster are the most interesting though | Church Street | 15.6% | | Harrow Road | 15.6% | | Westbourne | 14.8% | | Queen's Park | 13.5% | | Vincent Square | 13.2% | | Lancaster Gate | 13.1% | | Maida Vale | 12.3% | | Churchill | 11.6% | | West End | 10.9% | | St James's | 10.1% | | Abbey Road | 9.8% | | Regent's Park | 8.1% | | Bayswater | 8.0% | | Tachbrook | 7.2% | | Warwick | 6.4% | | Little Venice | 6.0% | | Bryanston and Dorset Square | 5.6% | | Hyde Park | 5.1% | | Marylebone High Street | -0.3% | | Knightsbridge and Belgravia | -21.4% | | Westminster Postal Votes | -4.4% |
The correlation between the increase in numbers of votes cast and Labour strength here is striking. If anything it seems to me that the lower than 'expected' vote here helps to explain why the Tory majority was reduced as much as it was, rather than explaining why it wasn't removed at all. Unless perhaps you think there was systematic suppression of Labour voters in Knightsbridge & Belgravia ? |
|
johnloony
Conservative
Posts: 24,557
Member is Online
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 15, 2016 15:54:28 GMT
Here is some pro bono advice - if that is the extent of your case you will be laughed out of court and end up costing yourself a significant amount of money. As a start, have you taken into account the change in electorate size? The electorate in Westminster fell by 13% between Dec 2011 and Dec 2015, so it is hardly surprising the absolute number of votes cast didn't increase very much. You need to be looking at percentage turnout rather than absolute turnout. 2000 - West Central turnout 30.9%, London turnout 32.6% 2004 - West Central turnout 32.9%, London turnout 37.0% 2008 - West Central turnout 48.5%, London turnout 45.3% 2012 - West Central turnout 39.2%, London turnout 37.5% 2016 - West Central turnout 45.0%, London turnout 45.6% So sometimes the turnout in West Central is a bit less than London as a whole, sometimes it is a bit more. Different candidates will appeal to different parts of London. In my psephological opinion, there is absolutely no reason to think there is anything unusual about the results in this constituency. In response to your reply, the case has already been through pre-trial and the Commissioner clearly believes there is a case to answer given there are a number of reasons why the results may prove inaccurate that are currently under investigation. Hence the progression of the case to Trial. There is a marked discrepancy as outlined that is wholly inconsistent with comparative results across London Boroughs. I'm not looking for advice on disproving the case therefore and may I say that your dismissive tone is unhelpful in this matter as is the lack of breadth in your psephological analysis of voter behaviour. On the contrary, greatkingrat's comment was, and was intended to be, entirely helpful and constructive. If you wish to proceed with this nonsensical case, you will lose time and money, and there is no harm in pointing out that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Nov 16, 2016 2:49:24 GMT
In response to your reply, the case has already been through pre-trial and the Commissioner clearly believes there is a case to answer given there are a number of reasons why the results may prove inaccurate that are currently under investigation. Hence the progression of the case to Trial. There is a marked discrepancy as outlined that is wholly inconsistent with comparative results across London Boroughs. I'm not looking for advice on disproving the case therefore and may I say that your dismissive tone is unhelpful in this matter as is the lack of breadth in your psephological analysis of voter behaviour. Thanks Mandy Mandy, The most valuable assistance any person contemplating legal action of any sort can get is advice which attempts to argue against their position. If the advice isn't that strong, then so be it. But if independent people on this website, with no axe to grind, make points against your position you would be very well advised to consider their comments as dispassionately and objectively as you can. If outsiders to your case, such as us, can punch a hole through your arguments, you'd be very well-advised to reconsider your intention to take this case further. If, of course, you have evidence of a substantial difference between the number of ballot papers issued and the total number of votes recorded in the result (including spoilt papers) then you do have a prima facie case. If you are seeking to argue that IER changed the result, well good luck with getting that argument accepted as valid in electoral law. |
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Nov 16, 2016 21:41:55 GMT
I think some of the replies to Mandy have been a bit offhand tbf.
If this case has been looked at and successfully gone through pre-trial perhaps there is more to it than the limited evidence Mandy has stated so far. There may be reasons for this, but perhaps Mandy (if she is at liberty to divulge) could give a little more detail in terms of what the Commissioner, who presumably made some sort of statement at the time, gave to assert that there was a "case to answer". We dont really have a lot to go on at the moment...
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2016 21:39:39 GMT
Turnout change in percentage points, London elections 2012-16 | Borough | 2012-16 | | Barking and Dagenham | +8.6 | | Barnet | +5.5 | | Bexley | +5.5 | | Brent | +7.8 | | Bromley | +11.9 | | Camden | +5.0 | | City of London | +7.0 | | Croydon | +6.7 | | Ealing | +8.5 | | Enfield | +5.6 | | Greenwich | +2.7 | | Hackney | +6.7 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | +2.9 | | Haringey | +8.4 | | Harrow | +7.8 | | Havering | +6.3 | | Hillingdon | +7.1 | | Hounslow | +8.4 | | Islington | +8.0 | | Kensington and Chelsea | +6.8 | | Kingston upon Thames | +11.0 | | Lambeth | +7.7 | | Lewisham | +10.1 | | Merton | +7.9 | | Newham | +9.7 | | Redbridge | +9.9 | | Richmond upon Thames | +9.0 | | Southwark | +5.4 | | Sutton | +6.3 | | Tower Hamlets | +8.8 | | Waltham Forest | +6.3 | | Wandsworth | +10.1 | | Westminster | +6.1 | | TOTAL | +7.6 |
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 17, 2016 21:50:08 GMT
Electorate change in percentage points, London elections 2012-16 | Borough | 2012-16 | | Barking and Dagenham | -10.3 | | Barnet | -3.6 | | Bexley | -2.6 | | Brent | -0.4 | | Bromley | -14.2 | | Camden | -1.5 | | City of London | -5.0 | | Croydon | -0.7 | | Ealing | +2.6 | | Enfield | -0.3 | | Greenwich | -6.3 | | Hackney | +1.9 | | Hammersmith and Fulham | -0.1 | | Haringey | -3.3 | | Harrow | -1.6 | | Havering | +0.9 | | Hillingdon | -0.6 | | Hounslow | +1.0 | | Islington | +0.1 | | Kensington and Chelsea | -14.2 | | Kingston upon Thames | -2.6 | | Lambeth | +1.2 | | Lewisham | -2.7 | | Merton | +2.8 | | Newham | -4.6 | | Redbridge | -4.1 | | Richmond upon Thames | -0.2 | | Southwark | +0.7 | | Sutton | +3.0 | | Tower Hamlets | +2.8 | | Waltham Forest | -0.4 | | Wandsworth | -2.7 | | Westminster | -11.3 | | TOTAL | -2.2 |
|
|
|
|
Post by An Sionnach Flannbhuí on Nov 21, 2016 22:50:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 21, 2016 23:11:09 GMT
While I don't know enough about the case to have any particular view about it, the idea that a group of right wing Tories and Kippers are either independent or wanting her to succeed, hence offering 'helpful' advice, is laughable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 21, 2016 23:23:38 GMT
While I don't know enough about the case to have any particular view about it, the idea that a group of right wing Tories and Kippers are either independent or wanting her to succeed, hence offering 'helpful' advice, is laughable. I can only refer you to the long-standing cross-party suspicion of electoral petitions on here. I can't see anything wrong with any of the data offered as a response. |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Nov 21, 2016 23:38:47 GMT
While I don't know enough about the case to have any particular view about it, the idea that a group of right wing Tories and Kippers are either independent or wanting her to succeed, hence offering 'helpful' advice, is laughable. I can only refer you to the long-standing cross-party suspicion of electoral petitions on here. I can't see anything wrong with any of the data offered as a response. I thought the political bias was pretty obvious though. |
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Nov 21, 2016 23:41:33 GMT
I can only refer you to the long-standing cross-party suspicion of electoral petitions on here. I can't see anything wrong with any of the data offered as a response. I thought the political bias was pretty obvious though. It is a politically biased question though- not many things more politically biased than an election petition. And the original post isn't exactly a masterpiece of bipartisan thought! |
|
Crimson King
Lib Dem
Be nice to each other and sing in tune
Posts: 9,843
|
Post by Crimson King on Nov 21, 2016 23:53:44 GMT
am I a right wing tory or a kipper in this context?
|
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Figgis on Nov 22, 2016 0:18:07 GMT
While I don't know enough about the case to have any particular view about it, the idea that a group of right wing Tories and Kippers are either independent or wanting her to succeed, hence offering 'helpful' advice, is laughable. And not one post with any evidence supporting the petition's validity- despite a left-wing lean on this forum. |
|
