Labour Demand Recount

[theman]

From www.westlothiannews.co.uk


THE Labour Party is to mount a legal challenge in a bid to overturn the results of the Bathgate ward at last week's local election.
The SNP's Jim Walker was elected with 1,543 votes, just ONE more than Labour's Harry Cartmill, who polled 1,542 votes.

The case could go to court. If successful, Labour would have 15 councillors and the SNP 12.

But the SNP would still hang onto the administration, as their tally, plus the support of the three hospital candidates and Tory Provost Tom Kerr, would provide them with 16 votes in the 32-member council. The Provost has a casting vote at council meetings.

Speaking at the first meeting of the new council, held in Linlithgow on May 10, the leader of the Labour group, Councillor Graeme Morrice, called for the meeting to be suspended due to the legal challenge.

Councillor Willie Dunn said: "There's no legal reason why we must have the meeting today." He told the meeting that the Labour Party had found "clear inconsistencies" in the result of the Bathgate ward.

Councillor Peter Johnston responded: "There's no substance to any challenge of the Bathgate result, this is nothing but a cheap stunt to prevent this meeting going ahead."

Councillor Morrice added: "We feel we didn't have the opportunity to ask for a recount."


Give it a break.

[StevenC]

**** sake. Shut up and get on with it you moaning, snivviling, devious little shite bags.

[Andy]

The count was a shambles for every ward, we certainly felt we lost both Tam Smith (Linlithgow) due to the massive number of spoilt papers where people voted for both Tam and his SNP running mate Martyn Day (two crosses rather than a 1, 2 means those papers were binned) but at th end of the day the rules are the rules.

On the Bathgate one they counted it in a slightly different method. Not sure why but all candidates were asked if that was OK and "all agreed". When the result was known all candidates were shown the outcome stage by stage and asked if it was acceptable, "all agreed". The the final result was presented to them and they were asked if they accepted it, "all agreed". Then and only then was the legal and final declaration of the result made by the returning officer.

Any candidate could have asked for a recount at any point right up to that final declaration, none did. The Labour party do have the right to submit an election petition and I'd suggest the sheriff also has the right to take their several thousand pound bond and then reject the petition as unfounded.

[Charles Darwin Esq]

**** sake. Shut up and get on with it you moaning, snivviling, devious little shite bags.
Can't argue with that sentiment...

[Demon Drawer]

The count was a shambles for every ward, we certainly felt we lost both Tam Smith (Linlithgow) due to the massive number of spoilt papers where people voted for both Tam and his SNP running mate Martyn Day (two crosses rather than a 1, 2 means those papers were binned) but at th end of the day the rules are the rules.

On the Bathgate one they counted it in a slightly different method. Not sure why but all candidates were asked if that was OK and "all agreed". When the result was known all candidates were shown the outcome stage by stage and asked if it was acceptable, "all agreed". The the final result was presented to them and they were asked if they accepted it, "all agreed". Then and only then was the legal and final declaration of the result made by the returning officer.

Any candidate could have asked for a recount at any point right up to that final declaration, none did. The Labour party do have the right to submit an election petition and I'd suggest the sheriff also has the right to take their several thousand pound bond and then reject the petition as unfounded.

Sounds like the normal procedure for an STV count was followed at every stage. Looks like my placement of Walker well ahead of Cartmill might well hold the balance on the council. As my vote would still have been a full vote and not partial transfer at that stage of the count.

[14march04]

wow, i never knew it was won by ONE vote :O thats close lol

[Sir Walter]

In politics, as in football, the referees decision is final. Red card (well pink as far as Labour is concerned) to the Labour Party, Scottish sub-Branch, for arguing after the decision!
'Council of the Year 2006' managed to get 'Shambles of the Century' at last week's count. Heads have rolled so put a sock in it!

[Demon Drawer]

In politics, as in football, the referees decision is final.

Actually to be fair in politics unlike in football the players (the politicians) have a team that check everything the referee (the returning officer) and the other players does, and the ref does consult with the players and/or their team at every step of the way. So by the time the referee does make a decision, there should be no dispute about anything within his/her remit.

[SpursLivi]

**** sake. Shut up and get on with it you moaning, snivviling, devious little shite bags.

If it was the other way round?

[Pedro]

See Andys full account of the evenings activities (above) Tom.

I think any party would have a damned cheek trying to pull this stunt after agreeing to everything at each and every stage of the process.

[StevenC]

Absolutely. Everything was 100% agreed at the time of it being done. Only now are they moaning due to sour grapes. Shut up. Get on with it.

[Charles Darwin Esq]

I wonder where Willie Dunn is these days? Probably in a huff with all us nasty Nationalists :monstereyeroll:

First they lose the parliament, then they lose the council...

[Livi Kim]

First they lose the parliament, then they lose the council...

Is Willie no longer Deputy Leader of the Council then? :confused:

[Bookman]

First they lose the parliament, then they lose the council...

That New Labour mob....awfy careless are they no?:)

[Charles Darwin Esq]

Is Willie no longer Deputy Leader of the Council then? :confused:
Nope :D

Booted out along with that slimeball Graeme Morrice.

[Samuel Johnson]

I think you meant to say, "removed from orifice". Sorry! Office!

[Charles Darwin Esq]

I think you meant to say, "removed from orifice". Sorry! Office!
Taxi!

[theman]

wow, i never knew it was won by ONE vote :O thats close lol

A miss is as good as a mile. :)

[Andy]

If it was the other way round?

One or two votes from thousands is a little hard to bear I can agree. If it had been me losing by a single vote would I have demanded a recount at the appropriate time, probably, not because I wasn't willing to accept the will of the people but just to make sure everything was exactly right.

But I know that once the returning officer says "this is the result I'd like to declare, is everybody in agreement" and everybody agrees, then it's all over.

[Andy]

A miss is as good as a mile. :)

The guy who was elected by one vote this time lost by 4 votes a couple of elections ago, like in football it (luck?) tends to even itself out in the long run.

[theman]

The guy who was elected by one vote this time lost by 4 votes a couple of elections ago, like in football it (luck?) tends to even itself out in the long run.

I'd agree with that, I have no time for Mr Walker (Dunno if he still gets alerted to my posts here, if your reading this Jim, you know why) that said if the votes were counted and agreed then there should be no recourse, no matter who won by a single vote. What next you don't win the league unless you are 10 points clear, a winner is a winner, a loser is a, well in this case, bad loser.

[Charles Darwin Esq]

...a winner is a winner, a loser is a, well in this, case bad loser.
I'm more inclined to say bad losers!