Election fiasco
Was it a guddle* or a fix? That's the question at the heart of about the report into the Scottish elections fiasco.
(pdf file) appears clear: it says, "what is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making". It does not, however, name names, since it goes on to say, "we have had no intention of - and, in fact, have scrupulously sought to avoid - assigning blame to individuals and institutions".
Its author, however, used interviews and a news conference yesterday to spread the blame beyond Scottish ministers and, in particular, Douglas Alexander saying, in effect, that politicians of all stripes played too big a role in the election process. In other words, Alexander presided over a mess or a guddle and not a fix. That's why the former Scottish secretary today apologised, in effect, for presiding over a cock-up (albeit one that he claims all parties were consulted on and agreed with) but has fiercely rejected the implication that he somehow rigged the polls.
This is a debate which has been had endlessly in Scotland ever since May 1st but has only just exploded onto the UK political stage. One reason for that is that Douglas Alexander is not just a cabinet minister, he is a friend and adviser to Gordon Brown. The opposition are targeting him to hurt Brown. Before he reached Number Ten many predicted that Ed Balls would play the role of Gordon Brown's Mandelson figure - the man the opposition attack to weaken the leader. Douglas Alexander has, unhappily for him, discovered that that prediction was wrong.
* Guddle = a state of untidiness or confusion, or an untidy place (informal) . (back to the top!)
PS: My colleague Brian Taylor, Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú Scotland's political editor, has also written on this subject on his blog.
I'm 
Comments
Nick it is true all the main parties agreed to the ballot design although since Labour were in charge in London and Edinburgh they are the pricipal culprits.And it was for party advantage, they all hated the 2003 election results where almost 25% of the list vote went to smaller parties and independents resulting in a much more representative parliament.It is also worth pointing out that it succeeded, the smaller party votes were cut in half but at the expense of 146,000 spoiled ballots and the reputation of Scotland throughout the world.I hope third world leaders remind Douglas Alexander of that when he lectures them on the importance of good governance!
Could it also be that if election rules and administration is subject to partisan control then we will no longer live in a functioning democracy ?
Labour has allowed postal vote fraud, the failure to register overseas forces to votes, and the multi layer fiasco of the devolved Scottish elections. The common thread? Partisan advantage.
What irks me, Nick, is the way that politicans of all persuasions, and the media (you included), always tiptoe around a much bigger issue with regard to Scottish voting; I refer of course to the 'West Lothian question' and the related over-representation of Scottish MPs in parliament.
Scotland is over-represented in the British parliament in more ways than one ...
Democracy? Well that is the question!
The Scottish people should have another vote immediately, with clear and decisive ways to show support for the parties involved.
The electorate is shown complete contempt but this government. How many more issues are there going to be that demonstrates this point?
Honeymoon?? - I think Relate is getting involved, and papers are about to be filed!
"a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making"
I find myself lost for an example of when this was not so....any suggestions anyone?
Just to show I'm not biased examples which substantiate the quote are just as acceptable!
Nick - I am sure David Cameron will be jumping on his couch as Gordon will now struggle with identity crisis along with British election fiasco!
"a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making"
I find myself lost for an example of a significant issue when this was not so....any suggestions anyone?
But why anyone should complain that this might be tantamount to electoral rigging is beyond me when the selection for Westminster is so institutionally rigged that the UK has the most unrepresentative "democracy" in the world.
Where else could representatives of 36% of the electorate be given almost totalitarian powers over the 64% who didn't vote for them and it be called a democracy?
Its amazing anyone votes at all when all they achieve is to give a specious legitimacy to whichever minority clique is slightly larger and therafter to be ignored, patronised or plundered.
The blame lies firmly at the door of the Scotland Office and someone should be held accountable.
One Douglas Alexander springs lithely to mind.
Resign? No!
Sack? Yes!
It says something when the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú's political editor finds it remarkable that a Scottish issue is making national headlines. We put up daily with hearing about political stories only relevant to England (not least the fortunes of their rugby team), but that rarely raises an eyebrow in London.
"a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making"
I find myself lost for an example of when this was not so....any suggestions anyone?
But why anyone should complain that this might be tantamount to electoral rigging is beyond me when the selection for Westminster is so institutionally rigged that the UK has the most unrepresentative "democracy" in the world.
Where else could representatives of 36% of the electorate be given almost totalitarian powers over the 64% who didn't vote for them and it be called a democracy?
Its amazing anyone votes at all when all they achieve is to give a specious legitimacy to a minority clique and thereafter to be ignored, patronised or plundered.
On a separate issue why can't the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú get the link to this blog to be more reliable? It really is frustratingly unpredictable
As someone who voted in the election and who is educated to a degree standard I found the forms confusing and had to ask for assistance in completing my ballot.The cynic in me says they made it complicated to alienate the minor candidates to ensure they were marginalised. The report says the electorate were treated "as an afterthought" I believe this is true- If any other "business" treated their customers like this they would soon be in serious trouble and I fear this is more ammunition for the sizeable "why bother voting" brigade who will see this report as confirming what they already believed- Politicians care about themselves not the electorate!
Can I ask why a Labour front bench minister apologising about him using his ministerial powers when there was obvious election bias isnt bigger news? This questions democracy and is ironic that the same man is now going around the world spreading how good this form is? We complain when it happens over seas but I say get the UN in here!
We see lots of comment all over Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú coverage of the "Election Fiasco" but no actual facts about what went wrong.
And so easy to explain what did go wrong.
There were three different ballots spread over two pieces of paper.
The local election ballot was on a single sheet of paper.
But, the constituency and regional ballots were side by side on another piece of paper.
The voting requirements for each side were different and the explanatory text (which contained the words "you have two votes") was confusing.
Of the nearly 2 million votes analysed, 130,000 or 6.3% were partially or completely rejected.
Most of these rejections were because the voter made no choice in the regional or constituency elections or both. This accounted for 5% of the ballot papers.
Also 21,000 regional votes were mismarked and 9,000 constituency votes were mismarked. mostly due to mixed numbers and crosses or putting more than one cross. These errors accounted for less than 1.5% of the ballot papers.
The election officers were not always consistent about how to interpret mismarked papers and whether to reject the paper or interpret the voters intentions
It appears that the reason for the confusing ballot papers was because it was easier for the counting machines and would speed up the count. But too little thought was given to the needs of the voters and the confusion that might arise.
The enquiry has recommended that automated vote counting is necessary for single transferable votes (STV) but that a great deal more thought should be given to voter needs. Also the count should take place the next morning when the election staff were not up against the clock and tired when making judgements about which papers were and were not valid.
There is no implication that any politician sought political advantage by the voting arrangements, (which in any case was agreed by all parties).
The reportage is all about the political fallout with lots of indignation and implications of political intrigue but in fact it's just a few people who could make sense of the confusing instructions.
My suggestion - allow and encourage people who have difficulty with the STV voting system to be accompanied into the voting booth so they can have the ballot papers checked before they are cast.
I just read about the between Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Cameron over this affair, and I must say I'm disgusted. The Prime Minister acknowledged the individual and collective responsibilities that arose from this issue, yet, Cameron couldn't resist taking a swipe. The mistake the Prime Minister made isn't in raising the issue of truth and point scoring of Cameron. Simply, it's the fact that he hit back. Cameron baited the Prime Minister like some school bully and, as often happens in these cases, the Prime Minister got ticked off for fighting back.
This is a regrettable incident. While Cameron is feeling buoyed up by this, I hope the Prime Minister considers the value of developing truth and responsibility, and takes a more positive and flexible response in future. By doing this, he will reinforce the sound lines he's taking and Cameron's bullying punches will land on this air. This will only strengthen the Prime Minister in the long-haul and leave Cameron et al gasping for air and falling behind. This looks hard and is counter-intuitive but is merely a continuation of the mature path the Prime Minister is following.
Nick's link to Brian Taylor's opinion is quite interesting. I note his call for people developing a better sense of personal responsibility, less finger pointing, and more calm. The arguing and emotional incontinence of politicians is self-indulgent, scattered, and leads to people running around in circles, which solves nothing and goes nowhere. Given the critical condition British politics is in politicians would better off by less performing to the gallery and focusing on delivering for society, as Brian Taylor rightly suggests. The alternative is failed state, and that ain't pretty.
Nick,
I love your broadcasts and find you very engaging. Today I joked I would see you at Westminster, and then I think I actually saw you on the green behind Westminster. I was in a black coat, white scarf and gave you a little wave.
Thanks for being inspiring
Lucia
Dear Nick
I note with no surprise that you have not had any responses to this entry on your blog. Scotland, to most of your "viewers", could be the other end of the world. The trouble is that what is happening up here (I'm in Kirkcaldy), could ouze down into the South. Then we would all be in the brown and smelly. I hope that the public will see the reality of what happened here and make sure that it does not reoccur in the rest of the UK.
Mis-Representation of the People Act
For those of you in the know, the above should read, Representation of the People Act, and it’s a crime not to follow the rules.
Ron Gould’s Report tells it all. He has said that Ministers were remiss in their actions, in trying to give political advantage to their Party, and putting the good of the Party above the electorate. Even then they failed miserably, which is a sign of sheer incompetence.
Mr Ron Gould had the evidence to make these allegations, but has chosen to confine his comments to his own remit, which was specifically not to blame anyone personally, which he did very well, and just to give constructive criticism to the Government. We can all read between the lines, and know who is to blame for this debacle, and insult to Scottish democracy.
There was criminal activity by Ministers who had the responsibility, as opposed to ordinary politicians.
Politicians will try to outdo their competitors, but the above Act makes it illegal to mis-represent the people, Therefore Douglas Alexander as the person in charge of the election on 3rd May should take responsibility and resign, or face charges under the Act and go to prison.
We look forward to further developments, especially Mr Alexander being questioned by Parliament.
Let Democracy Rule.
What is the significance of 1st May? The Scottish Parliamentary and Local elections were held on May 3rd! Maybe that is a slip of the finger given the significance of May 1st a decade earlier on the UK Political stage!
"what is characteristic of 2007 was a notable level of party self-interest evident in Ministerial decision-making".
Nick, how many Tory / LibDem / Other 'Ministers' are there?
I respect Ron Gould's determination not to be political in a foreign country but if the bus crashes can the driver blame it on the passengers who bought a ticket to ride?
Yes all parties had to sign up to the rules in order to take part but whose rules were they Douglas?
I wonder whether Alexander was told to step forward and take the flack, or whether he did it voluntarily? He has come out of it extremely badly either way, and the trust in the Labour government has taken another hit.
Keep it coming!
Nick, a bit surprised that you nor, it seems, anyone else at the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú is commenting at the appalling performance and behaviour of Gordon Brown at PMQs yesterday. Is it because you like the rest of the nation were cringing at the accusations that flew when he was clearly in trouble over the Gould Report? I never thought I would say it ... bring back Tony Blair - at least he was a leader!!
Ouch.
David Cameron floored Brown in PMQs, especially when he (GB) tried to assign blame to just about anybody but himself as he often does.
Is this why GB didn't call an election?
Not because he bottled it, but because he and his cronies have no idea how to administer one
Nick,
It says a lot about the politic class and you lot in the media that nobody has yet suggested re-running the election.
While this attempt at consensual politics didn't perform as well as could be hoped, the lessons of improving critical thinking and developing a less partisan attitude are clear. It's an individual and collective failure and sober reflection will help develop some cluetrain. While it's important to acknowledge the mistakes it's also important to acknowledge the opportunities.
Cameron's ego just exploded in front of the nation. He looks sharp and appears to have some momentum but this is crude posturing at best. While he was partially correct to raise some questions his overall approach was misleading and bullying. This does not reflect well on him as a policy thinker or person when the going gets tough. Calm and sensitivity are useful.
How dare they! The report clearly blamed all parties.
Like Labour would manipulate the electoral process to prevent the SNP from winning comprehensibly!
(note use of sarcasm)
Was anyone ever accused of "bullying" Tony Blair? I don't think so. Cameron gets under Brown's skin too easily and he can't take it.
I am beginning to pity this clumsy clunking misfit of a man (The PM if you hadn't guessed). He can't seem to keep his temper in check or think on his feet.
A simple "the events of last May were highly regrettable. We have accepted the recommendations the report has made to ensure that this doesn't happen again" would have sufficed. No lecturing, shouting, or spreading of blame.
There have been a significant number of changes to the electoral process over the last 10 years (postal voting, forms of voting, methods of counting etc.). These have usually been presented in terms of attempts to increase voter turn out. In practice turn out seems to consistently decline and most of the changes seem to be designed to increase turn out of a particular party's supporters. They have also resulted in a substantial increase in electoral fraud.
I would suggest that a part of the reason for the decline in turn out is a lack of trust in politicians which is to some extent evidenced by the above.
I am fairly cynical about our politicians and regard their behaviour as to be expected. What I am astonished by is the behaviour of the Electoral Commission. Their aim and duties taken straight form their website are as follows:
"Our aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. We:
register political parties
make sure people understand and follow the rules on party and election finance
publish details of where parties and candidates get money from and how they spend it
set the standards for running elections and report on how well this is done
make sure people understand it is important to register to vote, and know how to vote
make sure boundary arrangements for local government in England are fair"
It would seem to me that they are signally failing to meet their aim and are falling down in at least two of the five areas they claim to be responsible for. Has anyone from the Electoral Commission ever been held to account, resigned or even interviewed over the now repeated scandals in the our electoral system for which they are supposedly responsible. Nick, do you ever speak to them? Are they in practice not independent but simply an arm of government?
While the Scots struggled to cope with three ballots to be cast simultaneously (constituency, regional top-up and local), I, as a voter in England, had no such problem on May 3. For me there was just a choice from candidates for my local district council. So much media attention was given to the elections in Scotland and Wales because they would determine the composition of their national parliament/assembly, it was easy to forget that these electorates constitute only about 15% of the total population of the UK. Nothing better illustrates the democratic deficit created by Labour's devolution legislation. On the Â鶹¹ÙÍøÊ×Ò³Èë¿Ú website, there are pages devoted to Scottish politics, Welsh politics and Northern Ireland politics. England just has news.
Whatever the failings of the Scottish elections, and whoever was to blame for them, at least the Scots were given the chance to vote for their own national government, something conspicuously denied the English! I doubt Gordon Brown will trouble himself over that either.
Charles E Hardwidge.
Sir, your obvious bias is making you appear a little silly. Mr Brown has made his reputation braying and bulling and revelled in his reputation as The Clunking Fist. "Calm and sensitivity" never entered his vocab. The electorate KNOW this to be true regardless of their political bias. Tories feared/respected it; Labour rejoiced in it.
To ask the man Mr Brown referred to as "a posh pansy" to stop being mean to the big bruiser merely underlines Mr Brown's inabiltiy to master Mr Cameron on HIS own chosen [and supposedly, his best] ground.
Gordon Brown made the biggest error a Prime Minister can make - he lost his temper. Perhaps John Reid gave him lessons.
That is now going to be exploited at every oppportunity.
Say what you want about Tony Blair, but he was a master of debate. He could adjust his tone accordingly. No doubt behind the scenes his language would have been colourful, but he presented himself in a staesmanlike manner at all times in public.
The problems of political bias in Scottish elections is trivial compared to the corrupt system that gives Scottish MP's votes on English issues.
The West Lothian question is not justifiable and exists purely for Labour Party self-interest.
Nick can you write more?Today is Saturday and the last post was Wednesday...
The politicians of all parties who let this by were at fault.
Too big a gap between the practical agent in constutuencies and the member, or, as the SNP benefitted from the muddle, perhaps some calculated scunnery from the scunners' party?
I can honestly say that I would have spotted it, and I bet most agents/former agents would too.
Do not overestimate the intelligence of the just about voting public, nor underestimate them either.
The problems of political bias in Scottish elections is trivial compared to the corrupt system that gives Scottish MP's votes on English issues.
Richard Evans posted this (34). Richard, I hate to bring this up, but when the Conservatives were in power, they voted in the Poll Tax which only affected Scotland for the first year.
I agree that it is wrong for MPs to vote for issues that do not affect them, but unfortunately that is the way Parliament is set up.
The voting slips were a nightmare! The worst of it though was allowing the SNP to be classed as the "Alex Salmond for First Minister etc etc". That was wrong. The SNP used him since he is the best known (in fact to some people the only one) SNP member.
Scottish politics seem to be heading for US style based on the individual rather than the party.
Perhaps we could persuade a certain Mr W Connolly to stand - at least he would be honest.
..."many predicted Ed Balls would play the Mandelson figure".
I suggest many of the PMs enemies believe he is better left in place.
RE: Charles E Hardwidge.
Sir, I am afraid your comment about Mr Brown/Mr Cameron ring hollow. Mr Brown made his reputation braying and bulling his opponents. He was repected and feared for it by all, regardless of political affiliation.
To now point the finger at his opponents who have merely meet like with like and call for "calm and sensitivity" serves to underline your the partisan nature of your own views and the failings of YOUR man.
The politicians of all parties who let this by were at fault.
Too big a gap between the practical agent in constutuencies and the member, or, as the SNP benefitted from the muddle, perhaps some calculated scunnery from the scunners' party?
I can honestly say that I would have spotted it, and I bet most agents/former agents would too.
Do not overestimate the intelligence of the just about voting public, nor underestimate them either.
As most of us remember how Mrs Thatcher trialed the Poll Tax in Scotland the rank Tories who want to tinker with our constitution know where they can go I would suppose?
There is nothing remotely corrupt about those elected to the UK national parliamnet making decisions which affect us in England, wherever they were elected.
However such a description is plainly inflamatory and intended to be just another tiny nail in Britain's coffin.
Don't bother trying to turn the lights out as you leave, the rest of us like them on in these darkening times, when unity is at a premium.
Would these pretend English nationalists like to try the Poll Tax out on Scotland again, I wonder?
One of the important lessons seems to be that election management is a fragile thing. Clearly a lot of things went wrong, and that was witout anyone trying to interfere. It's important that if someone is trying to fix a election, that it's transparent enough for people to see it. In this case, so much is happening inside a computer out of sight of the returning officers and agents, it's really quite worrying.
Ask the Cornish Nats, and a far larger number of Yorkshire folk, what they think of "English" self government.
Or anyone west of Bristol for that matter.
And ask the people whose opinions place Norfolk, Gloucestershire and other southern counties in "The North" because they ahve been alienated from London based Government, probablt since the beginning of time.
Londoncentricity remains a problem, not at all
addressed by what is basically a crude piece of pro Tory attempted Gerrmandering.
They cannt win a UK election so they seek to change the rules.
These people are so desperate they would
abandon the Union which still serves the UK's
constituent parts fairly well.
Another 10 years and they will be campaigning for complete autonomy for parish councils, figuring they may be able to gain control of a few of those.
Why not address a real issue, rather than a Daily Mail & etc saloon bar created one?
England needs some devolution - but
conservatively done, with some common sense.
Best call in Messrs Brown and Straw and their
crew I think . . .
It's only fair to point out that Ron Gould wrote a letter to the Electoral Commission clarifying his position, after his conclusions were misrepresented by David Cameron. Gould wrote,
""all political parties were concerned with the potential political advantage".
It's a shame that the Scottish Conservatives, SNP, and Liberal Democrats haven't had Douglas Alexander's honesty in admitting to their failings in this whole affair
Charles Hargwige: I am glad MacCamaroon wasn't a prefect at my school, mind he wopuldn't have alsted long.
"Clunking fist?" - indeed!
And on the matter of losing one's rag, I remember Mrs T, and Heath doing that on various occassions.
Funny how standards are set for one side which are held not to apply to the other, isn't it?
I am tired of Nick Robinson telling us 'how it really is', when he has not got a clue; He is just a, mere journalist, who observes and comments, in his case , irritatingly so, in dumbed-down tabloidese.
In the reporting of the Scottish elections voting problems, he did not make it clear that all parties were party to the decisions taken on the ballot format; interesting, eh?