It’s not long since a judge described aspects of our current electoral procedures as being suited to ‘a banana republic’. He was dead right!

One should start with the Register of electors. It is now ‘updated’ every month, not annually as formerly. This is supposed to give a more accurate register and the coming of the computer makes it possible. But most local authorities employ only three or four people in the Electoral Registration Dept., no more now than they did 20 years ago.

• What verification is there on a monthly basis that all the claims of people to reside at whatever address are in fact accurate? You can’t do the checking monthly that used to happen annually.
• What verification is there that the people named are of the legal age or nationality or even exist?
• What checks are there that people are not registered at multiple addresses and vote more than once at the same election?
• Since anyone can ask for a postal vote just because they want one, what guarantees do we have that ballot papers are completed by the actual person named?

Answer to all the above? Almost none. The cases of electoral fraud that do come to light often do so accidentally and I am fairly certain that they represent only the tip of the iceberg. If we want ‘fair elections’ – and I think we do – shouldn’t we address this problem as a priority?

Needless to say it is the usual diatribe against the Conservative party, which had been out of power nationally since 1997 and hasn’t had ‘control’ of Kingston since 1994. Not that Ed ever admits to that, of course.

It contains direct untruths in his own hand.

• The Tories ‘tried to undermine my campaign to protect Health Services at Kingston Hospital.’ That ‘undermining’ consisted of getting undertakings from the person who is now Prime Minister and the one who is now Health Secretary that there would be no such closures. Davey did not get anything useful done. Helen Whately did.
• He goes on to invent a story about Conservative proposals to ‘cut local schools’ funding.’ I’ve been racking my brains to think where he can possibly have got this from. The only conclusion I can arrive at is  – he made it up! This is on a par with all the other Lib Dem scare stories that proliferated during the campaign. But Davey has to take personal responsibility for these. They are in his own fair hand.

He goes on to say ‘I hope people know me well enough now……….’ Sadly, they evidently don’t – but some of us DO.

‘LibDem Immigration Policy Unravels

Iain Dale 2:40 PM

At the best of times, Ed Davey is a politician who I find intensely irritating. He looks and sounds so holier than thou. I console myself that whenever he appears on TV it loses the LibDems votes. And his appearance on the Politics Show today was no exception. He made Pinocchio look truthful. He made so many spurious claims about immigration that it was difficult to know where to start to refute them……………

• Davey repeated Nick Clegg’s claim in the final Leaders’ Debate that 80 per cent of immigration comes from the EU and therefore can’t be controlled. The real figure is less than a third.

• Davey said that the Conservatives supported ‘an amnesty called the 14 year rule.’ This is not true. Conservatives do not support the 14 year rule, which is in any case for exceptional cases, unlike the Lib Dems’ blanket amnesty.
• Davey said that his party’s amnesty was ‘a one-off’ that ‘would have no impact’ on immigration. Evidence from other countries that have tried amnesties shows that they lead to more illegal immigration and more amnesties as they encourage more illegal immigrants to try their luck.
• Davey claimed that the Conservatives removed exit checks when they were last in Government. This is not true – it was Labour who removed them in 1998 and the Conservatives support their reintroduction.

And to add insult to injury, Davey finished his comments on immigration by saying that ‘People dislike politicians because they don’t tell the truth’. Pot, Kettle, Black.’

It didn’t have room to say much except that the candidate wants to ‘kick ass in Westminster’ (sic). Refreshing? Maybe!

• A further smear appears about Tory cuts in local services.  We, who campaigned to keep open day centres for the elderly are, apparently, about to close Alfriston. Actually it was kept open 12 years ago as a result of a match funding deal between Kaleidoscope and RBK on the motion of Labour Cllr. Jeremy Thorne and myself. Davey certainly raised publicity about it and caused Lib Dem councillors do do a smart about turn.
• The Tories, who campaigned for weekly recycling collections in 2006, are also supposed the be about to launch an attack on recycling. When we’ve pledged to freeze the Council Tax for 2 years (at least) there’s no way we’re going to risk increasing our liability to pay Landfill Tax.
• The Lib Dems know this very well. Their allegations are based on absolutely no foundation other than Lib Dem scaremongering. This ‘Voice’ is full of it from start to finish.

Ed Davey wondered why we were sceptical about his and Ms. Kramer’s reported ‘threat’ to Kingston Hospital. The answer is obvious – treated over the years to the ceaseless diatribe of scares, half-truths, downright untruths and snide innuendo which is the stock in trade of the Liberal Democrats, and of which this ‘Voice’ is a prime example, what decent person can believe a word they say?

Again we have the usual childish blather about ‘Labour cannot win’ and suggesting (a) that Helen Whately is unknown ( after living and campaigning here for 3 years!), but (b) they know her well enough to know for whom she works. The Daily Telegraph dubbed Ed a ‘saint’ for not having a second home (at 16 minutes by fast train from Waterloo I should think not, but there we are!) so they make much of that.

Ed scratches around to find all the things that have happened locally in the past 13 years for which he can claim some credit. He, of course, claims all the credit even if he had rather little to do with them and wasn’t on his own in things he did play a part in – like Surbiton Hospital. He also claims credit for working with Joanna Lumley to get a fair deal for Gurkhas. I hope he had their permission to use their pictures and names for political purposes!

All the above is par for the course, though it’s depressingly familiar and intensely partisan – which readers thinking a ‘hung’ Parliament would be a good thing would do well to bear in mind. The reaction on the doorstep is that people are getting rather fed up with this approach, which insults their intelligence.

What concerns me more, though, is Ed’s predilection for being photographed with serving Police officers, face to camera. When you’re the MP that’s OK because it goes with your public office. But when you’re not (and Ed is right now no more than the Lib Dem parliamentary candidate) then you’re using the images of serving officers for party political purposes and that, surely, compromises the impartiality of the Police. When I stood for Parliament in 1983 and 1987, I was told very clearly that this must not be done unless the permission of the Police has first been obtained – and yet this isn’t the first time Mr. Davey has done it. Perhaps he’s cleared it with the Borough Commander, but he hasn’t done so in the past. He didn’t in 2005 – I know this because I asked!

Also causing concern is a big photo showing Ed with children in lessons at what I take to be an Infants’ School. Again, I was always told that this was taboo unless you had the permission of their parents  to photograph their children (or, better still,  the parents were there with their children)AND subsequently to use their images for political purposes. At the very least the images should be smudged – but they aren’t. I do hope Mr Davey and his agent have cleared all these points.

Interestingly the BBC hardly reported 20 economists supporting the Conservative contention that the £178billion deficit run up by Labour needs to be tackled sooner rather than later. When 60 other economists supported Brown’s line that we can spend our way out of recession (which is what his policy amounts to) it was headline news on the BBC. To add to its fairness and objectivity the news item referred to the 60 as ‘leading’ economists. There was no qualification of the adjective of course – other than their agreement with Brown (and the BBC?), one presumes.

Locally our papers seem anxious to give credibility to the ‘story’ put about by our two Lib Dem MPs about the impending closure of A&E and maternity services at Kingston Hospital. This is in spite of a very explicit letter from NHS SW London setting out the facts in the matter and a clear statement from the Health Minister in the Adjournment Debate last Monday.  One might have thought it in the public interest that this letter be published in its entirety. However, it was written on 27th January and I haven’t seen it in the local papers yet.

One wonders if Mr. Falchikov’s kitchen table isn’t groaning under new confections the media might swallow. Time will tell. Watch this space!