At ATW...

...a post on the Henley by-election, the result of which will be announced in a couple of hours. How badly will Labour do?

I had no idea!

Election fraud driven by immigrants practising "village politics" of the Indian sub-continent could be a crucial factor in deciding the future control of Birmingham City Council, a major report warns today.

Family loyalties, the dominance of men and the existence of the "biraderi" clan system among British Asians provides perfect conditions for widespread rigging of postal votes and other electoral malpractice in Britain’s major cities, according to the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. In a 94-page report called Purity of Elections in the UK – Causes for Concern, the trust argues that the UK’s election system is close to breaking point and at risk of fraud, as the countdown to May’s local elections gets under way.

The study says the turning point in recognising Britain has a problem with election fraud came in 2005 when a court found six Birmingham Labour Party members in Aston and Bordesley Green, all Asian men, guilty of tampering with thousands of postal ballots.

The incident, which Elections Commissioner Richard Mawrey QC said would "disgrace a banana republic", forced the Government to tighten regulations surrounding postal voting, but the reforms were nowhere near tough enough according to the authors of today’s report.

They say: "The Birmingham election court of 2005 demonstrates that the control of a major city council or the outcome of a parliamentary contest could be influenced by the scale of fraud that was rendered possible by postal voting."

The study says numerous convictions for electoral fraud since 2000, when postal votes first became freely available on demand, resulted from incidents in inner-city wards where a large concentration of voters originate from the Indian sub-continent.

It adds: "Significantly, these convictions have emerged alongside anecdotal evidence of more widespread, and long-run, practices associated with Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi traditions of biraderi (brotherhood) clans influencing voting behaviour.

"It is widely suggested that extended family and kinship networks, frequently with their origins in settlement patterns in Pakistan and Bangladesh, are mobilised to secure the support of up to several hundred electors, effectively constituting a block vote."

So, are our fearless elected representatives from the three main parties taking action to challenge this pattern of behaviour? Are they distancing themselves from those engaging in such activities? Not a bit of it! On the contrary, we are told that "all of the main political parties have sought at times to gain advantage by allying themselves to a Muslim candidate claiming to be able to guarantee a minimum number of votes arising from their support within a wider clan". This is something that is also evident from the fact that, while the overwhelming majority of vote-rigging cases involve Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims, the party affiliations of those involved seem to be pretty evenly divided between Labour, the Tories, and the Lib Dems. More evidence that for all three parties the primary, or perhaps the sole aim, is to get power, while such things as democracy and public service come, at best, a poor second in the reckoning.

Still, it is nice to see the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, a strongly left-wing organisation, which last year donated £2million to the Lib Dems, coming out and acknowledging that certain sections of the community do indeed have a disproportionate tendency to engage in vote-rigging, and that the advent of postal voting on demand has played into the hands of anyone who should wish to subvert the democratic process in this manner. If we're lucky, this might herald a new era of straight talking about the former issue, and the solving of the latter problem by the simple expedient of abolishing the on demand postal vote. But since all three major parties have, for short-term gain, bought into the long-term corruption of the democratic process, I don't hold out much hope that this new era will eventuate.

Hat-tip: English Rose

Who's got all the money?

More than 100 MPs have declared family members they employ using their taxpayer-funded expenses.

The list of 106 includes the home secretary, environment secretary and the standards committee chairman.

A register of employed relatives was set up after revelations about Tory MP Derek Conway's payments to his son. It will become compulsory in August.

There is no rule against MPs employing relatives but the European Parliament has voted to ban the practice for MEPs.

It really does say something about our MPs, when hundreds of them are behaving in a manner that even the passengers on the Strasbourg to Brussels gravy train deem unethical!

The register is currently voluntary but will be compulsory by 1 August.

It is likely more will come forward. The current list amounts to 54 Labour MPs, 39 Conservatives, eight Liberal Democrats, one independent, two DUP and two SNP MPs.

But in February Tory leader David Cameron said "just over" 70 of his MPs employed family members.

If the discrepancy between the 39 Tories who have admitted that they are employing relatives, and the 70 odd who actually do so is typical of all parties, then somewhere near 200 MPs have family members on the payroll. Out of a total of 646, that seems rather a lot.

There are no rules against employing relatives and previously there had been no obligation to declare them publicly.

Shadow Commons leader Theresa May said: "In principle, there is nothing wrong with employing family members, but it is important that we have openness and transparency so that the system is not abused."

But Matthew Elliott, of the pressure group the Taxpayers' Alliance, said the employment of relatives was "completely outdated" adding: "To dispel any suspicion that they are taking advantage of taxpayers' generosity, this practice should be banned once and for all."

MPs only have to give job titles of employed relatives - they do not have to spell out details of the work they do.

Being in a charitable mood, I'll accept that some of those relatives who are on the payroll are doing the job they're paid for. But in the light of the Conway family saga, one has to wonder how many of those with impressive titles and taxpayer-funded salaries are really just Henry Conway-style freeloaders. A fair few, I'd guess. Certainly, I imagine that we might see some interesting declarations from those MPs who are holding back their declarations until the last minute. It's almost like they had something they wanted to hide...

When public money is being spent, it is only reasonable to demand that the public be allowed to know precisely what it is being spent on, and be able to feel sure that it is not being wasted. Given the Conway scandal, and the claim from Labour MP Chris Mullin that MPs feel entitled to claim as much on expenses as they can get away with, regardless of how much they've actually spent, we cannot simply take our MPs at their word when they assure us that the money they claim in expenses is being used honestly and effectively. Matthew Elliot's suggestion of preventing MPs from giving taxpayers' money to their relatives seems drastic. But given the avaricious nature of many (most?) MPs, it may perhaps become necessary. Or we could just take away all their expenses, and let them fund their own activities from their own pockets...

Whoever wins, we lose

Londoners really are spoilt for choice in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Who can differentiate between the three towering statesmen, those intellectual colossi and ornaments of public life, who have done us the honour of seeking our votes? Not me, that's for sure! To me, they all seem exactly the same. Consider the forthright and insightful approach that they've all taken to the question of Islam:

Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

What an original way of looking at it!

The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?

In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.

But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:

The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.

But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.

He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.

Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."

However, I think that, on this occasion, the award for most idiotic candidate has to go to Brian Paddick, formerly Britain's most senior homosexual policeman, and also, we now discover, a renowned Islamic scholar:

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.

"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."

First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?

Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".

At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.

Like the TARDIS

A WOULD-BE MP is being investigated by police after it emerged 27 people are registered to vote at his house.

And officers are also probing claims a prospective councillor has five people registered at his home who are also listed at other properties in the same town.

Both Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Mohammed Afzal Anwar and Labour Pendle Council candidate Mohammed Tariq have insisted they have done nothing wrong.

Police launched their investigation after separate allegations were made to Pendle Council and Lancashire Constabulary by the Liberal Democrat and Labour parties in Pendle.

Mr Anwar said there was nothing untoward about the number of voters living at his terraced home which is 214 to 216 Manchester Road, Nelson, and consists of two houses knocked into one.

He said that 27 people were registered to vote at the property, but that not all were resident in this country at any one time.

Mr Anwar said no postal or proxy votes would be requested for the property.

He said that he had discussed the situation with election officials at Pendle Council.

Mr Anwar said: "There are different people who are living in different parts of the properties. There are certain people who go abroad from time to time. One or two are students who have been in Poland for example.

"And other people are going (abroad) and coming back. There will be no postal or proxy votes issued from this address."

His election agent, Coun Tony Greaves, said the property was inhabited by Mr Anwar, his father, three brothers, their respective families and "contains 24 bedrooms."

Only two people registered at the addresses, who were currently resident in Pakistan, were not entitled to vote, said Coun Greaves.

Labour party officials asked Pendle police to launch a probe amid claims that not all residents living there should be entitled to vote.

The claims followed Liberal Democrat allegations over Labour candidate Mohammed Tariq, who is standing in Whitefield ward in next month's Pendle Council elections.

He is accused of having five people registered at his Portland Street home who are also registered at other properties elsewhere in Nelson.

Pendle Labour group leader Mohammed Iqbal is Mr Tariq's election agent and said the prospective councillor had done nothing wrong.

He said: "I have looked into Lord Greaves's allegations concerning Mr Tariq. They seem to centre round two members of our candidate's family."

Police confirmed that they were investigating allegations of electoral fraud in Pendle.

And, of course, there really is very little to be said, pending the result of the police investigation(s). Except that they must be pretty impressive terraced houses that Mr Anwar has, to be capable of yielding twelve bedrooms each. Should the allegations against him prove to be without foundation, we can only hope that those in authority will utilise his evident talents, and task him with solving the nation's housing shortage!

Hat-tip: The Green Arrow

Postscript: Meanwhile, former Slough Tory councillor Eshaq Khan has been charged with conspiracy to defraud, as have four of his campaign workers, all of whom have also been charged with offences under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Last month, an election court found Khan guilty of vote-rigging, in the closely contested election for the town's Central Ward.

At ATW...

A post about the new Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg. Click here to read it.

The manager has the full support of the chairman...

That's what football clubs say when they're in real trouble, isn't it? It usually heralds the impending ignominious sacking of the manager. This story put me in mind of it:

Sir Menzies Campbell's position as Lib Dem leader is "under discussion", his deputy Vincent Cable has told the BBC.

But Mr Cable said he did not think Sir Menzies' job was under threat, despite some in the party wanting him to go.

He urged the party not to panic over recent poor opinion polls in what was currently an "extremely febrile and volatile" political environment.

Mr Cable said he thought Sir Menzies would reflect on the position and "probably" would want to stay in post.

I suppose he might just last until the New Year. Then, if not before, we should see yellow blood upon the snow.

Update: Okay, "until the New Year" was evidently out by about two and a half months. Had I said "until dinnertime", I might almost have been accurate. I assumed that he'd try to cling on for at least a month or so, though.

Lib Dems in good idea shocker!

Patients needing emergency NHS treatment after becoming drunk or incapacitated by drugs would be charged under proposals yesterday from Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman.

The plan is one of a series of policy shifts in a strategy paper he published before the party's annual conference in Brighton next week. Mr Lamb said: "If you get rat-arsed on a Friday night and get taken to A&E where you are foul and abusive to staff, is it right for the taxpayers to fund your life-saving treatment?"

He called for wide public debate on whether the community should pay for the excesses of the individual. There was a strong case for charging drunks for stomach pumps or treatment of injuries, and pubs and clubs should also be made to contribute if their complicity could be proven.

You know, aside from this very last bit, I actually agree. I really fail to see why the taxpayer should fund the treatment of those who use up valuable resources through their own vice and stupidity. I recall that on the one occasion when I was unfortunate enough to find myself in A&E, the room was filled with the sound of drunken idiots, and a nurse told me that I was the only person in there who was not there as a result of alcohol or drugs. And this was a Tuesday night - imagine what it must be like on a Friday or a Saturday. No, as far as I'm concerned the taxes that we pay entitle us to free NHS treatment when we fall ill through natural circumstances which are no fault of our own. When, on the other hand, we fall ill entirely as a result of our own actions, then we are imposing a burden on the NHS that we could quite easily have avoided imposing, and we, not the taxpayer, should bear the cost of that.

Why do I disagree with that last bit, about pubs and clubs also being obliged to contribute? Well, basically, because it's not their fault if their customers drink too much. It is not unreasonable to expect individuals to exercise self-control, and, indeed, the Lib Dem proposals seem designed to promote the idea of personal responsibility. Thus, if you go into a pub, and have a drink, you are responsible for seeing that you exercise self-control in the amount of alcohol you consume. This is your personal responsibility, and not that of anyone else, including the person who supplies alcohol to you. To suggest that pubs and clubs should bear part of the responsibility if a drunk injures himself is to deny or reduce the personal responsibility of that drunk for his actions.

Menzies Campbell lies and dissembles

I see that Sir Menzies Campbell has added his voice to those calling for a referendum. Well, he sort of has, but mainly he hasn't. To be precise, he has called for a referendum on British membership of the EU itself, dismissing the "reform treaty" as "comparatively minor".

There are two points here. First, when he says that the reform treaty is "comparatively minor", he is lying. The reform treaty is only "comparatively minor" if the EU constitution itself was comparatively minor - after all, they are essentially the same. The reform treaty will entail the handover of a considerable number of powers from the UK to the EU, not to mention the creation of a de facto EU foreign minister, and the incorporation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights into British law, at a time when the overwhelming majority think that it is we who should be taking powers back from the EU. To dismiss this as some sort of irrelevancy is deceitful, undemocratic, and treacherous.

Secondly, it is to be noted that Campbell has, like Keith Vaz before him, attempted to turn the question, from being focused on the specific issue of the treaty, to being focused on the general issue of whether or not we should be in the EU at all. In fact, Campbell has gone further than Vaz, since Vaz only wished to frame the debate in such a way that it appeared that voting against the treaty would lead to EU withdrawal, whereas Campbell wishes to ignore the reform treaty altogether, and simply ask "EU membership - yes or no?".
Of course, neither Vaz nor Campbell is a big fan of popular democracy. The only reason either of these pro-EU fanatics has suggested a public vote on anything is that they believe that a referendum is now almost inevitable. If it is indeed almost inevitable, then that is cause for celebration.

However, as I have written before, it is imperative that both the referendum question and the debate surrounding it stay focused on the treaty, and are not allowed to turn into a de facto (or indeed, a de jure) vote on EU membership. The reason that pro-treaty elements want to shift the parameters of debate is that while they are virtually certain to lose any referendum focused on the treaty, they would probably win a referendum on EU membership itself, and they are, of course, keen to fight any campaign on the ground which offers them the best chance of victory. Having won, they would then aim to claim their victory as a mandate for all further handovers of power, at least for the next thirty years or so, whether the public wanted these handovers or not.

Respectable, mainstream politics

A Labour councillor who took an “unwinnable” seat from the Liberal Democrats did so by using smear campaign against her opponent, a court has heard.

Miranda Grell, a 29-year-old aide to the Deputy Mayor of London, appeared to have a glittering political career ahead of her.

A rising star in the Labour ranks, she had been photographed with high-profile figures, including Cherie Blair and Jesse Jackson, and many saw her election to Waltham Forest Borough Council, East London, as the first step on her road to high office.

But yesterday, the Manchester and LSE graduate appeared at Waltham Forest magistrates’ court accused of labelling her rival a paedophile to win the seat. The court heard that Ms Grell told voters that Barry Smith, an incumbent Liberal Democrat councillor, slept with underage Thai boys and was “dirty”.

Mr Smith, 56, a high-profile member of the council cabinet who has a long-term, 39-year-old Malaysian partner, lost his seat by 28 votes. He broke down in tears yesterday as he told of the impact that Ms Grell’s alleged lies had on him.

Gareth Branston, prosecuting, said that during her election campaign Ms Grell, whose parents came to England from Dominica in 1973, told voters: “Don’t vote for Barry because he’s a paedophile.” She led a “whispering campaign” designed to play on constituents’ “fears and aversion to paedophiles”, he claimed.

Ms Grell, who cites Barbara Castle and the suffragettes among her political heroes, is charged under the Representation of the People Act 1983 with four counts of making false statements about another candidate in order to gain an electoral advantage.

She denies all the allegations. Paul Williams, for the defence, said that the accusations against her were “some sort of a Liberal Democrat group conspiracy” and that the court case was now being used as “a political weapon” to attack Ms Grell.

So, if she's guilty, then a relatively senior Labour official and councillor has been caught spreading obscene lies about a political opponent. Lies, indeed, which could potentially have put him in quite serious danger; Mr Smith said in his evidence that after the lies were allegedly spread, he was threatened and spat at in the street.

Or, if Grell is innocent, then the Lib Dems would appear to have brought about a court case in a bid to smear an opponent, and individual Lib Dem supporters might even have committed perjury.

Either way, it doesn't look good, does it?

Lib Dems flaunt their stupidity

Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants should be granted an "amnesty" to stay in Britain, the Liberal Democrats said last night.

Nick Clegg said foreigners who had dodged the authorities to live here for "many years" without permission should be allowed to remain.

Outlining proposals for "managed" migration, the party's home affairs spokesman said those who had never committed a crime and were devoted to Britain had "earned" their right to stay.

Quite how we can know whether these people are "devoted to Britain" is unclear. I'm not quite sure what light the Lib Dems, who evidence their own devotion to Britain by seeking to flood us with immigrants, close prisons, and hand over our national sovereignty to the EU, can shed on this. Personally, I'd far rather have anyone's hatred, than the Lib Dems' devotion.

Leaving that aside, however, I am happy to agree with Nick Clegg on one point: only those illegal immigrants who have never committed a crime should be allowed to stay in Britain. By which I mean, none of them, since they're all criminals. The clue is in the name, Nick: 'illegal immigrants'. These people came into this country in breach of the law; their very presence here is a crime. As I've said time and again, the notion that because criminals manage to evade justice for a lengthy period of time they should be rewarded for their crime is simply abhorrent.

I've previously written about the demands for an amnesty for illegal immigrants made by the Archbishop of Westminster, and the Institute for Public Policy Research. More reasons for objecting to such an amnesty can be found at those posts. Suffice to say, that I think that it's a thoroughly bad idea, which will not only reward criminals for their crime, but will encourage more people to commit the same crime, in the hope of obtaining the same reward. No surprise, then, to find the Lib Dems giving it their enthusiastic backing.

Bad night for Tories

Up late to keep track of the by-elections in Sedgefield and Ealing Southall. Both Labour holds, and both poor results for the Cameron Tories, who came in third in both seats. In Sedgefield, they fell from second last time, being overtaken by the Lib Dems, while the result in Ealing Southall was, perhaps, even worse. There, despite the presence of the much vaunted ten-day Tory Tony Lit, they stayed in third place, some way behind the Lib Dems.

The Ealing Southall result can, I think, be viewed as a particular rebuttal of David Cameron, personally. In most constituencies, when one has a Tory candidate, he is simply listed as a "Conservative". But in Ealing Southall, Tony Lit stood, not as a "Conservative", but expressly as the candidate of "David Cameron's Conservatives". Not to mention the fact that the Tories put a huge amount of effort into the constituency - Cameron himself visited five times. And for all that, their share of the vote went up a mere 0.9%.

In two constituencies tonight, voters have rejected the Tory Party, and, it would appear, David Cameron personally. Given that the most recent opinion poll showed the Tories 7% behind Labour, one has to ask whether, having sold themselves out to a leader who makes Labour look right-wing, the Tories have actually achieved anything at all. Personally, I believe that they would be doing substantially better if they had a leader who actually had principles, and who was prepared to talk about the issues, such as immigration and crime, which really matter to people, rather than an unprincipled low-life, who drivels on in a sanctimonious cant about minor concerns such as the terrible threat posed by illegal logging. Feel free to quote this back at me if I'm proved wrong, but unless the Tories replace Cameron pretty damn quickly, I really can't see any result at the next general election other than a fourth successive Labour victory.

I also noted that in Sedgefield, approximately 21% of the vote went to minor parties, or independent candidates. Of particular interest to me, were the comparative results of UKIP and the BNP. UKIP scored 1.9%, a marginal increase from last time, but still an essentially insignificant figure. By contrast, the BNP, who didn't even stand last time, took 8.9% of the vote, finishing in a comfortable fourth place. To me, this provides further evidence that UKIP really cannot achieve a significant result outside of the European elections. And, at a time when all three main parties are so similar as to be almost indistinguishable, and when not one of them is willing to listen to the views of the public on such issues as crime, immigration, and the EU, then this result suggests, once again, that the best option for those of us who really wish to see real change in the way this country is run, is to vote for the BNP. Even if they don't win, a vote for them is by far the best method of applying a sharp kick to the fatted posterior of the political elite.

Hypocrite of the Day

I was amused to read of the latest travails of the once (and future?) Lib Dem leader, Charles "mine's a Scotch" Kennedy. It seems that he was this afternoon "spoken to" by officers of the British Transport Police after causing a disturbance on the 11.05 Paddington to Plymouth train (a bit early in the morning to be drinking, isn't it?). Apparently, he was found smoking out of the train window, and when asked to stop, refused, after which there followed what the BBC describes as a "confrontation" between Kennedy and the train staff. The police were called, and, Kennedy was met by them on arrival at his destination, although he was not arrested.

What's particularly ironic in all this is that Kennedy has been an enthusiastic supporter of the recent ban on smoking in public places. It's interesting, I think, to observe the hypocrisy of the man, who evidently feels entitled to reserve for himself the pleasures and privileges he would deny others. Not, of course, that he's the first politician to fail to practise what he preaches...