Election Night - an undramatic, excessive expense?

Now that attention is turning to the need for spending cuts great and small, I'd like to take the chance to pounce on one area of expenditure that is admittedly small in itself but which got the blogosphere so worked up earlier this year - Election Night.

We were told that it was a horror that "penny pinching councils" were considering - SHOCK! - counting the votes the next day. It was ghastly that they were prepared to not spend extra on staff and room hire to count the votes in the middle of the night so that we could get a result in the small hours of the morning. It might even have led to the end of democracy in this country and the collapse of civilisation because a formal change of government might not happen by lunchtime. And we might not get the fun of a "Portillo moment" for most of the country to rejoice about.

Well the actual result meant it took five days for a change of government, but from where I'm sitting civilisation hasn't collapsed and we're still a democracy. And as for "Portillo moments", most of the country were not rejoicing when Michael Portillo lost his seat in 1997. Most of the country were in bed.

And let's be honest - the 2010 election contained very few results that could be considered a "Portillo Moment" and even when the outcome fits that, the declaration wasn't remotely as dramatic. For instance here's the Belfast East result where Peter Robinson lost his seat:
It's hardly the most dramatic declaration going is it?

Was the extra money spent on overnight counts really necessary to give political junkies some excitement? I frankly don't think it was. There are other areas of the election where frankly more money was needed - more staff, better venues for polling places and a better communications system would probably have dealt with the horrendous queues and allowed more people to actually cast their vote. (See "More money for electoral administration!" or "Fewer elections at the same time!"?) That would have been worthy extra spending for democracy. Overnight counts were not.

It was also galling, though not surprising, that in the run-up to the general election Parliament passed legislation to force local councils into holding overnight counts in all but the most mitigating circumstances. This legislation was passed by and cheered by many people who claim to believe in "localism". Often it seems that "localism" does not extend to local councils.

For 2015 let's go the other way. Remove the legal requirements on councils to focus everything on having an overnight count and encourage (not force) them to count on Friday daytime. The priority in election spending should be in getting efficiency, not wasting public money for a few people's excitement. If "Election Night" has to be replaced by "Results Day", so be it.

The General Election is finally over

Thirsk & Malton polled yesterday, three weeks after the rest of the country. Anne McIntosh has been returned, but I know I'm not alone in being uncomfortable about the way elections can be postponed this way. As Tom Harris highlights at And another thing...: No need for a delayed verdict, there is a real danger of problems if a party leader or Speaker found their own poll delayed; especially if fanatics were to try and exploit this rule for malign ends. But also it's unfair on the voters to not be able to give their verdict at the same time as the rest of the country. And what if this one result were to determine which party was the largest?

In other countries the procedure is that if a candidate dies the poll goes ahead but their party/agent can nominate a replacement up to the production of ballot papers; otherwise the dead candidate still stands and if elected there is a by-election. I think a constituency could handle that more easily and let's be honest - how many people are going to not vote for a party simply because they will be guaranteed the circus of by-elections if that party wins? It's a much simpler solution and frankly fairer all round.

So fancy proposing a bill to amend the law Tom?

"More money for electoral administration!" or "Fewer elections at the same time!"?

The Election Law Channel: It’s administrative blunders, not fraud, which should worry us most is right - no-one ever campaigns for the council on the first slogan above (well not successfully anyway). And I agree you have to have some sympathy with election officials at various levels who are asked to do a difficult job without adequate resources.

One of the big news stories about the election was the number of people who didn't get to vote despite queueing for a very long time, hours in some cases. Why this happened in some places and not others hasn't received so much attention but it seems clear to me this was a failing at the local level. Calling for the head of the chair of the Electoral Commission will achieve nothing here.

The basic problem seems to be rooted at the level of the polling stations, with failure to cope with higher than anticipated demand. But was it simply more voters than predicted or were the voters taking longer than expected?

Looking at the various lists of places where there were problems I wondered if it was connected to having local elections on the same day and whether or not this was the first time in a while. Taking The Election Law Channel's list of places, we find the following:

• Birmingham - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Chester - No
• Hackney - Yes, first ever, also elected Mayor
• Islington - Yes, first ever
• Leeds - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Lewisham - Yes, first ever, also elected Mayor
• Liverpool - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Manchester - Yes, first since 1979
• Newcastle - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Sheffield - Yes, first since 1979(?)
• Weybridge - Yes (local authority Elmbridge), first general/district since 1979(?)

Now okay Weybridge/Elmbridge had combined general and county elections in 1997, 2001 and 2005 whilst Chester is an anomaly. But in every other problem area it was the first time for at least thirty years that the general election took place on the same day as local elections. And I think this is what overwhelmed the stations.

A lot of voters will have arrived at the polling stations to be given two or even three ballot papers that included elections they’d heard very little about with voting instructions that can be different on each paper. In my home borough of Newham we have a directly elected Mayor and three members to elect in each council ward, the same set-up as in Hackney and Lewisham (both of which appear on the list above). A voter in any of these boroughs had to express a single choice on one paper, up to three simultaneous choices on a second, and two sequential preferences in different columns on a third.

Whilst Newham hasn’t appeared in reports it was clear from the counts that a huge number of voters got the voting systems muddled up with many people "over-voting" on the parliamentary election by using two or three crosses. Conversely in the council elections a lot of people used only one or two crosses (although these are still valid votes). It was also noticeable that voters were taking a good while at polling stations at times when there weren’t queues. Both of these point to a high level of voter confusion leading to many taking significantly longer than normal to cast their votes. To Newham's credit there was a campaign to emphasise the three different systems.

(As well as asking for help with understanding the ballot paper instructions, voters in some places might also have found themselves asking why they couldn’t vote for particular parties who didn’t have any candidates in some wards or boroughs. But I've not seen the indepth line-up in the areas effected.)

I suspect a lot of areas simply failed to take into account the increased requirements that stem from having multiple elections at once and this may go beyond returning officers to budgets. It’s not a case of simply shoving the usual general & local allocations together, subtracting one set of costs for polling station staff and facilities/equipment hire and adding a little to cover a) extra local ballot papers being printed to cope with the expected general turnout; and b) a bit more time for counting staff to cover separation. But I wouldn’t be surprised if some of that kind of back of beermat budgeting had been made.

The whole problem will need to be investigated in-depth and solutions found. Maybe more money and resources are needed for polling stations. Maybe there shouldn't be combined general and local elections, even if that would depress the latter's turnout. (Other countries do have them combined so the investigation should look at how they handle the problems this brings.) Maybe we shouldn't have so many different voting systems in operation at the same time (something that may get even worse if we change the system for the Commons). Or perhaps we should have a combined ballot paper and introduce a method that allows people to vote for all of a party's candidates at once if they wish. There are many possible ways to solve this but at least one is needed in time for the next elections.

Still waiting

...but then this is not unusual in any form of negotiations. You can't produce a plan for government on the back of a beer mat and these things do take time. Unfortunately taking time is something alien to the UK's political culture where we've become used to instant results.

Glancing around the internet, particularly Twitter, I can see grassroots members in all parties advocating all outcomes, with a few threatening to leave their party if it doesn't take their advice. I'm not going to do the latter but I'll throw my preferred outcome on the pile - a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition which holds a referendum on the Single Transferable Vote. I don't believe the outcome of such a referendum is at all certain (though I think it can be won for First Past The Post given then right campaign) but one way or another it would settle the election system debate for a generation.

A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition would have a firm majority in parliament, able to implement necessary decisions. It would be able to implement many areas of common interest. It wouldn't be comfortable for many members in either political party, but often members of governing parties find the conditions of the day require their parties to do things they would ideally rather not do.

Such an arrangement would be inherently more stable than a minority Conservative government, even if the latter had the support of the Democratic Unionist Party. A minority government would always be at risk of the opposition parties all combining and voting it out. It could offer no medium term guarantees. It would not be the best option for the country. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition it must be.

Time for a coalition?

I'll be honest - I have always been deeply sceptical about the viability of coalition government in the UK. I also don't think any coalition can claim to have been voted for by the people. People may say "52.0% voted for a 'progressive' coalition" or "59.1% voted for a libertarian coalition" or all manner of combinations, but the fact is that none of these coalitions were actually offered to the voters. It is false to conscript votes to one option or another.

That said I am also deeply worried about the news from the financial markets. It's a scary time and the country desperately needs a stable government that can take decisions. If getting that involves compromise then so be it. Governments have to compromise all the time with interests both at home and abroad.

I don't think the country's voting system should be simply changed for the sake of this. But that isn't actually what the Liberal Democrats want. They want a referendum on changing the voting system. But the outcome of such a referendum isn't a foregone conclusion. It could instead endorse the current system - British Columbia recently had two referendums on changing the provincial legislature's voting system from First Past The Post to Single Transferable Vote. The first had a majority but failed at the threshold, the second saw much greater information campaigns and rejected it outright. Don't take the opinion polls as indicative either way.

But right now the most important thing is the economy. All parties have to make the current situation work. And if we are to have a voting system that makes hung parliaments more regular outcomes then lets see the advocates of that voting system make those outcomes work.

If I hear that a Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition has been agreed, it won't be the end of the world. At the moment it's the best option available.

The election outcome

And so the election is over. I'll post my full thoughts soon. At the moment I'm still tired - the count here in Newham for both parliament and the council took a very long time and I didn't get home until late in the evening yesterday so I'm currently catching up on things including sleep.

I was one of the Conservative candidates for the Stratford & New Town ward on Newham council. We didn't win but instead came second. My thanks to my running mates, Peter Fox and Armyn Hennessy, both of whom are delightful gentlemen, as well as to all the other Conservative campaigners and candidates, particularly our agents Graham and Barbara Postles and Neil Pearce. Thanks also to our parliamentary candidates Virginia Morris (West Ham) and Paul Shea (East Ham) and our Mayoral candidate Maria Allen. I am sure we will hear more from all of them before long.

I'd also like to congratulate the victorious Labour candidates in Stratford & New Town, Richard Crawford, Charlene McClean and Terry Paul. Having met all three of them either during the campaign or the count I've found them to be good friendly people and I hope they give the ward good service for the next four years.

As for the overall national picture I'll post again soon. All I will say now is that the news from the markets is seriously scary.

David Cameron: The Big Society

In a Party Election Broadcast, David Cameron talks about the big idea behind our election campaign:

David Cameron: What it takes to change a country

In a Party Election Broadcast, David Cameron explains why Britain needs the sort of change that only a strong Conservative government can bring:

An invitation to join the government of Britain

In a Party Election Broadcast, we explain that we've got big problems in this country and the truth is politicians can't do everything on their own. We need your energy, your ideas, your passion to get this country moving:

How to vote at a General Election

Here's a little treat from YouTube - a 1970 public information film about how to cast your vote:
Please note: If your area has council and/or Mayoral elections on Thursday then you will be given additional ballot papers. Make sure you read the instructions on each ballot paper to cast your votes correctly.

The Frying continues

Yet another apology for the low posting rate at the moment. As you may well have guessed the bits and pieces I'm working on at the moment are still consuming a lot of time, plus both the general and council elections are now upon us.

I'll aim to post my thoughts on election matters over the next few weeks, but much other stuff will only resume after that. Sorry about this!