Q. When is theft of anti-fraud electoral documentation not a theft?   Answer: When it's convenient.

​

Well before 2016, Spotland Community Centre had long been considered a polling station with a problem. Complaints of people feeling intimated by large groups of party activists congregating outside, meant it was the only polling station in the ward that required a police presence. 

​

I was a candidate at the May 2016 local elections. In July of that year I became aware that anti-fraud documentation had disappeared from the above polling station. The documentation should have accompanied the unopened ballot box to the official count. The missing documentation (called the marked register) contained the names of over 1000 people, and would have indicated whether or not they had voted. Without it, there would be no way of knowing if someone's vote had been used. Additionally, there would be no way of knowing if someone had cast a vote that was not theirs to use. ie the vote of a person who had decided not to vote (no identity is required to vote - not even a voting card).

​

The Acting Returning Officer (Rochdale Chief Executive in this case) knew this crucial anti-fraud documentation was missing. He did not inform any of the candidates. The ballot box linked to this missing documentation was rammed full of ballot papers. The votes it contained were 80-90% in favour of the Labour. I and others witnessed this, blissfully unaware of the missing anti-fraud documentation.

To challenge a result, you must do so within 21 days of a result being declared. By not being informed, candidates were denied the opportunity to make any sort of representation to the Electoral Commission or even object to the tainted ballot box being opened.

​

As soon I became aware of what had happened, and after RMBC were unable to explain how the documentation had gone missing, I informed the police that there had been a theft. I also informed the Electoral Commission and the Government Cabinet Office. It was the first they had heard of what had happened.

​

The police later informed me that they would not be investigating the matter because Rochdale Council were treating the matter as lost property.

Local councillors and the then leader (R Farnell) were made aware of the issue but showed absolutely no interest in either the missing documents, or the acts and omissions of the Chief Executive in his position as Acting Returning Officer. For this role, he was paid an extra £5-6000*. His job? To ensure the elections were properly run and democracy served. This money is agreed locally and is not refundable from central government.

 

Over a year later, the Chief Executive of RMBC  falsely claimed to another former candidate, that RMBC had informed the police, Electoral Commission and Cabinet Office as soon as they became aware of the missing documentation. I know this statement to be untrue as I was the one who informed them all - about 3 months after the election

This is what you are up against. Another reason not to vote for national parties at local level.

​

*This is an estimation as RMBC have refused to disclose exactly how much extra the Acting Returning Officer is paid, but from other sources the above figure would appear to be accurate.

 

​

​