A statement from Ian Charters, Elections Officer for the Green Party, Harrogate and District and Elections Agent for Gilly Charters, Green Party Candidate for Stray, Woodlands and Hookstone District
As the Liberal Democrat team sit around discussing the result of the Harrogate by-election in Stray, Woodlands and Hookstone, like crooks arguing over a failed heist, they ought to be considering it a hollow victory and also, possibly, a short-lived one.
By using imaginary threats and perpetrating electoral fraud to achieve the result – rather than fighting a contest based on competing party policies for local issues – they have attempted to subvert, even destroy, the local democratic process.
The LibDems claimed, on election materials hand-delivered to postal voters, that the Green Party candidate had stood down – when it was not true. This is an offence under Electoral Law. When this was pointed out you would expect a fulsome apology to the Green Party candidate and immediate mitigating actions. Instead, enquiring voters were given an excuse about an ‘unauthorised draft’ and an ‘external printer’ (in fact their own internal printing company was named on the imprint) and no attempt was made to correct the error. Furthermore, the distributed letter encouraged postal voters to return their ballots quickly – before the lie could be countered. This suggests strongly that the tactic was a deliberate attempt to mislead and therefore alter the voting intention of postal voters. They knew that Election law prohibits the separation of postal and in-person votes at the counting of votes, so it would be impossible to identify to what extent the outcome had been affected.
At the Count there was still no acceptance of their breach of the law. After the result was announced and the whooping from them had died down, we heard an excruciatingly fumbled acceptance speech from Andrew Timothy who was then quickly escorted out of the building. He refused all interview requests from the press representatives there (as he had done throughout the campaign). Such is the calibre of the Councillor chosen by a minority (44%) of the voters to represent everyone in their district that he cannot be trusted by his minders to speak in public. The LibDems had assumed continued ownership of the electoral district due to the thirty-years service of Pat Marsh yet were unwilling to pay tribute to that distinguished legacy – a task left to the Green Party candidate to acknowledge.
The Police investigation into their electoral offence has built a case for the Crown Prosecution Service to consider. Perhaps the LibDems think they will just get a rap over the knuckles or a fine (which they will treat as merely at expense of winning). However, the catalogue of recent electoral offences and misdemeanours (listed by Andrew Jones in a letter to Ed Davey) will surely be taken into account by a magistrate so perhaps even a custodial sentence may be judged appropriate. It is the candidate’s agent who must take the responsibility for the accuracy of all election materials.
The Green Party feels that it is not fair on the electorate to demand a rerun of the ballot as the result was not close. However, in a thriving democracy, a candidate who commits an offence (even if accidentally), should consider stepping down from the contest or at least issue a fulsome public apology. Regrettably, in some political parties winning at any cost seems to have become more important than maintaining integrity and honesty.
If the case comes to Court this could be during the run-up to the Town Council elections, which the Greens will contest with a Green vision for the town – a healthy environment that benefits everyone. It is hoped that the Liberal Democrats will, this time, put forward some ideas, rather than fight contrived national battles, so the electorate can make an informed choice for their town’s future. It is to be hoped that the electorate will also remember the LibDems’ disgraceful behaviour during this election. In the meantime all Liberal Democrat Councillor’s activities within North Yorkshire Council must be seen as ethically suspect as that party does not appear to feel constrained by the law of the land.