Local Election Report 2011 RCC

Local Election Report 2011 RCC

The results of the RCC and AV elections have no doubt been blogged by www.martinbrookes.blogspot.com, although I cannot access his blog since it remains blocked, which is in my interests, at Oakham Library. However the cliff hanger of the day was the count for Oakham South West. Mrs Joanna Figgis, Conservative, was clearly a well-deserved winner. What a nice woman, she really seems to be a genuine asset to local politics and my hearty congratulations go to her. Mrs Figgis had family duties and went home for a couple of hours, presumably to feed her family, whilst the recounts for second place proceeded. The one candidate whose name I recognised in this battle for second place was Peter Jones.

Cllr Richard Gale told me at the Count that Peter Jones had claimed, during the election campaign, that he ‘did not voted against Sainsbury’s planning application.’ If so might this not be considered just a tad disingenuous? Whilst it is true that Peter Jones did not vote, having declared a personal and prejudicial interest in the planning application, he certainly spoke out against Sainsbury’s planning application at the planning meeting I attended

Finally, and rather belatedly, I began to take an interest in this race for second place. The table, where the recount was taking place, was surrounded by Conservatives, including Roger Begy, the Conservative Agent and two or three others, as well as a smartly dressed, pristine, Conservative candidate from Ketton who had won her seat uncontested. Peter Jones, a Conservative, was one of the candidates, but I had to double back to find out who the other candidate for second place might be. I am admittedly a bit slow on the uptake, but I was told it was someone called Richardson. Stupidly, the name meant nothing to me, but it seemed he was an Independent and had no one observing at the counting table on his behalf.

I wandered back over to the table where the recount was taking place. Roger Begy, both hands leaning on the table, with elbows akimbo, jutting out like buttresses on a venerable, but crumbling, heritage building, was a difficult obstruction to overcome, however I did manage to slip through that hurdle. Having found a place all the Conservatives asked me to leave the table, saying: ‘You are not the candidate, you are not the agent, you shouldn’t be here.’ Remarkably, Mrs Helen Briggs, the Returning Officer, then came over and repeated that mantra, ‘You are not the candidate or the agent, you shouldn’t be here.’ She went on to say that as the Returning Officer she was in charge and I should leave my observation post.

Well what could I do?

With all the Conservative people on my side of the table asking me to leave and the Returning Officer, on the other side of the table, also asking me to leave I had no choice but to point out that there were at least four people representing the interests of Peter Jones on my side of the table, I forbore to mention one n the other side, and one of me representing the interests of Richardson, a man I didn’t know. I also pointed out that all candidates at the count not only had a duty to themselves, but also had a duty to observe the proceedings on behalf of others, to ensure a free and fair election. This shouldn’t have needed saying, but perhaps Helen Briggs may need some retraining as a Returning Officer? Then quite stupendously the Conservative Agent said he was only there to observe a fair election and was not representing, Conservative, Peter Jones’ interests. The Conservatives certainly distinguish themselves in disingenuousness, don’t they?

For the Returning Officer to seek to exclude the only non-Conservative from the counting table was so breathtakingly outside the scope of her statutory duty, that I went over to beg Cllr Richard Gale to come to the counting table too. Richard Gale seems to play a fairly straight bat.

He came over in time to see that there was a ten vote discrepancy on the reconciliation of votes. Before the reconciliation was made Helen Briggs ordered the votes to be taken from the table. I was speechless and paralysed for a couple of minutes.

Turning to one of the women counters I asked: ‘Is that correct the unreconciled votes have been removed from the table?’

To which she replied: ‘I couldn’t possibly say.’ Amazing that RCC have made so many staff redundant recently and yet have been advertising for new staff yet again. Who was weeded out? Why? Are staff being intimidated?

I asked Cllr Gale to get Richardson to the Count. He rang Richardson’s number and handed me the phone. ‘Mr Richardson, you don’t know me, but my name’s Helen. Where the bloody hell are you? I am at the Count, and your votes have just left the table with an unreconciled 10 vote discrepancy. You have to get over here now, I can’t represent your interests, I am not your agent and I won’t be able to examine the spoiled voting papers.’ (276 – 286 discrepancy between the marked pencilled sheet to number of votes counted)

There had also been a nine vote bundle in which voters had voted for both Richardson and Jones. When the votes were brought back to the table there were now eleven votes in that pile. Curiouser and curiouser.

The Conservative Agent began leafing desperately through the 11 vote bundle. Prompting me to say: ‘Excuse me sir, but you are not meant to touch the voting papers.’ At which point the counter nodded her agreement. Should one, as a rank amateur, have needed to say this to a qualified Agent for a major political party?

Richard Gale then spotted that one of the voting papers in the eleven vote bundle for both candidates had one vote for Richardson and one vote for the person above Jones. That vote was removed and placed in Richardson’s pile. As the votes were removed from the table again, the chic Conservative woman from Ketton said, ‘That means there’s another discrepancy so we’ll have to have another recount.’

To which I replied, ‘But it’s clear that one vote was placed in the wrong pile, so the discrepancy is fully explained.’

With the votes back on the Returning Officer’s table, out of plain sight in the recess of the roped off Staff area, Mr Richardson finally appeared. He’d been coaching a Rugby Club in Stamford. The votes were brought back to the table once again and recounted very very carefully. The poor counters seated at the table behaved impeccably despite grabs at the voting papers by sundry Conservatives as they desperately sought to verify what the counters had ascertained.

Finally the announcement was made: ‘Jones 277, Richardson 279.’

Various Conservatives, who had said they would stay for the counting of the Parish votes, then high tailed it out of the room and into their cars. One couldn’t help but wonder if perhaps this was to seek a private corner in which hatch a plot on how to rectify the vagaries of the voting public for Oakham South West.

As for me? Thank goodness I lost. Had I won I would not have been able to file this blog! However I do thank my voters for their votes, they were deeply appreciated. But that’s democracy in action.

1,233 words

Helen Briggs, Local Election, Rutland County Council, Roger Begy, Richard Gale, Richardson, Rutland, Oakham, Conservatives, Helen Pender, Multum in Parvo, Peter Jones, Martin Brookes