Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Alexander Baker is deluding himself

Dear Mr Baker,

Just seen this title (Tory plans for electoral system ) on LabourHome.org - due to the Stalinist policy on comments there is no point replying there. ( Though this sort of control must make NuLabour adherents really feal at home ;-) )

You have really got the wrong end of the stick. It is Labour that has debased our electoral system to an extent that in certain areas fraud is now the main point of contention in our elections. (That used to be the case in Northern Ireland - but things have now been reformed there and the dead no longer vote early - vote often as they used to. )

Labour knew, and were certainly told by the electoral commission and the other parties, that there use of postal voting would create fraud but they didn't care. I wonder why ?

Checking that people are eligible to vote is just common sense.

No the real attempts to manipulate the electoral system have been made by Labour in disqualifying voters from abroad who have been away for more than 15 years ( who they must fear would be Tory ), messing up the armed forces voting registration ( again likely Tory votes ) and still allowing members of the Irish Republic to vote in general elections here ( most likely to vote Labour ). Perhaps none of this bothers you, but I hope - for the sake of our country - it does.

Mr Baker you really should look at what Labour actually does, not what your fevered imagination tells you. (If you can master this trick on this issue then you should be able to go on to see why the current morally corrupt government is failing Britain. )

Yours,

Man in a Shed

PS Don't be so condescending as to think that those in lower socio economic groups are incapable of seeing through NuLabour incompetence and voting Conservative also.

Update:

Even the Labour Party's general secretary disagrees with Mr Baker - see this excellant article in the Times.

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

Btw, some of the Conservative forums don't even allow you to sign up unless you are introduced by someone trusted..now that's what I call Stalinist, not some nuLab site that's trying to block spam (although i'd call most of their entries spam anyway).

Man in a shed said...

But not on this site... comments are always welcome ( given the usual common sense required ).

I only moderate to stop spam - which has stopped turning up since I set the controls to moderation !

Alex said...

Dear Man In A Shed,

I'm rather honoured that you devoted a whole post to my comments, not to mentioned surprised also.

As regards your PS, you will note from my Labourhome post that I do not suggest for a minute that those from lower socio-economic groups will automatically vote Labour (nor indeed, that they should). I simply suggest that they are more likely than not to be disenfranchised as a result of Conservative "common-sense".

My personal view - quite different from your own, or that of the Conservative party - is that there is no dichotomy between a fair ballot and encouraging as many people as possible to vote. It is criminal that many people no longer feel that it is their civic duty to cast a vote in the general election, let alone have a say in how their local area is governed. It is true for many that getting to the polling station is difficult, thus restricting their ability to vote.

The use of postal voting, and other forms of remote voting, give many more people the chance to vote, as well as reducing the time voting takes for others.

This should be welcomed.

What my post didn't say, and perhaps should have, is that of course electoral fraud should be minimised.

The fact of the matter is that postal voting does not create electoral fraud as you seem to suggest, it simply - under present arrangements - makes it easier to commit than fraud at the ballot box.

Hence I do not believe that new methods of voting should be scrapped, but I do agree that stronger anti-fraud measures are appropriate.

My objection to the Tories' policy is that it places integrity of the ballot over and above participation. I happen to think both should be key aims of any elected official, and that neither should be prioritised.

Integrity of the ballot is important, but what use is that if no-one votes.

I hope I fleshed out my opinion more fully. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my Labourhome post.

Best wishes,

Alex.

Man in a shed said...

Alex,

Many thanks for your comment. I'm going to give it a proper reply, but must really do some work this morning first !

Man in a shed said...

Alex,

I've taken a few of your points in the context they were made:

My personal view - quite different from your own, or that of the Conservative party - is that there is no dichotomy between a fair ballot and encouraging as many people as possible to vote. ( Don't see why this is different from my view ) It is criminal (its not yet – but Labour might make it so if they really get frightened by there loss of support in seats they have failed for so many years ) that many people no longer feel that it is their civic duty to cast a vote in the general election, let alone have a say in how their local area is governed. It is true for many that getting to the polling station is difficult, thus restricting their ability to vote. ( That's a very weak argument – most people can do anything if they want to ).

The use of postal voting, and other forms of remote voting, give many more people the chance to vote
( and a few people the chance to fill in lots of votes), as well as reducing the time voting takes for others( see previous comment !).

This should be welcomed.
( No its undermining the legitimacy of our government. )

What my post didn't say, and perhaps should have, is that of course electoral fraud should be minimised.
( Here we agree )

The fact of the matter is that postal voting does not create electoral fraud as you seem to suggest, it simply - under present arrangements - makes it easier to commit than fraud at the ballot box.
( You must tell me which planet you live on – just check BBC online or the comments of the judge in Birmingham, recently – each party and the electoral commission have said that the current form of postal voting is open to widespread fraud. Fraud has been found and prosecuted and it was all down to postal votes. Check Earth media for details. Look I know I sound boorish when going on like this - but really how could you miss it ? Please don't take offense - I just can't see how you can'y have seen this.)

Hence I do not believe that new methods of voting should be scrapped, but I do agree that stronger anti-fraud measures are appropriate.
( Which is it – the current system was OK or it needs fixing – hint everyone except the party that thinks it will benefit from postal fraud is against it ).

My objection to the Tories' policy is that it places integrity of the ballot over and above participation.
( Under the current system many people never participate – rather landlords, fraudsters or dominant family members voite for them – but perhaps you just care which way those people vote ). I happen to think both should be key aims of any elected official, and that neither should be prioritised.

Integrity of the ballot is important, but what use is that if no-one votes.
( Low turn out is down to how politics is carried out these days – your guys started all the spin and deceit – however I think its no longer, sadly enough, limited to NuLabour )

I hope I fleshed out my opinion more fully. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my Labourhome post.
( my pleasure )