Barnhill by-election result could be over-turned by Courts. Hearing starts tomorrow.

The two day recount hearing for the Barnhill by-election starts tomorrow and as a bombshell curtain raiser the Kilburn Times today LINK  reveals that sacks of votes went astray at Clock Cottage, Kenton, which is one of the Council's storage depot.

The Barnhill Conservatives launched a petition to the High Court alleging that 100 votes were moved from the Conservative pile and transferred to the Labour pile. These were double votes - votes for the two Tories. If the recount transfers 100 votes to the Conservative they will be declared winners.  However the Council confidently told the Kilburn Times that they think the result will be upheld by the courts.

The Count is taking place in Room 73 (largest room) at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand. 

The real issue has changed with the discovery of the missing sack which only emerged when the Court asked for the ballot forms.

As readers will know I hold no brief for the Conservative Party but I do believe that elections should be conducted fairly so welcome this hearing to clear up the matter. I was a Green Party candidate at this by-election along with my colleague Pete Murry.

This is the statement made to Wembley Matters by Stefan Voloseniuc who with Kanta Mistry was a Conservative candidate for the ward.

On 23 January this year, we had three by-elections in the London Borough of Brent and I was one of the Conservative candidates for Barnhill Ward, alongside my colleague Kanta Mistry. We worked extremely hard and managed to do well; however, on the evening of the elections during the count, a bundle of our 100 votes had been unduly moved to the Labour Party’s candidates votes, leading them to win by a small margin. Despite our persistent requests on that evening for a recount and a flick through the bundles the Returning Officer (RO) Chief Executive Officer Carolyne Downs rejected our requests entirely. 

After the election I spoke to the Electoral Commission about the RO’s behaviour at the count. I was informed that the RO ought to have allowed a recount and flick through of the bundles on the day. The sacks are supposed to be sealed as per the People’s Act 1983, which states that the RO has a duty to ensure that each sack containing the ballot papers must be sealed and stored securely, to avoid any interference with the ballot papers by any parties. As such, in order to have a recount, we needed to file a Petition at the High Court, asking for a recount. We followed this process and we managed to obtain a hearing to seek an Order for a recount to take place at Court with the Court giving permission for the seals to be removed and the recount to take place in the High Court itself.

To our surprise, a few days before the hearing the RO’s legal representatives informed us that the seals (of the Barnhill Ward alone, and not the other two wards) were found to be broken. We requested evidence in the form of pictures and witness statements. We were informed that further evidence will follow. Upon receiving this evidence in the form of witness statements on behalf of the RO, we discovered that they could not find the seals on the sacks You  will find upon reading the  statement made by the Head of Executive and Member Service, there has been serious breach in following the prescribed lawful procedure. 

Once we came to learn of this significant breach, we requested for the recount (which is listed to take place on 16 and 17 July 2020) to also include a count of all unused ballot papers in order to reconcile the total ballots printed (used and unused), particularly as the sacks were not sealed, open to interference by anyone. 

The RO refused our request for the recount and reconciliation of the unused ballot papers; however, the RO willingly agreed to a recount of the unused ballot papers ONLY IF the recount result went against the Labour Party candidates. I am sure you agree that this clearly points towards partiality in favour of the Labour Party, despite a duty by the RO to remain neutral.

The  witness statement made by Thomas Cattermole, Brent Council Head of Executive and Member Services to the Court sets out the events surrounding the seach for the missing Barnhill papers. 

The storage room at Clock Cottage was visited several times before they were found in a sack labelled "23/5/19 EU elections BP's' in pen. It had no seal and it was dirty on the outside.  It was upright and it was surmised that nothing had fallen out and nothing was found on the floor on checking. Cattermole said that he could only assume the papers were placed in a sack that already had the EU elections label on it. Photographs were taken in accordance with the Judge's Order.

The sack along with others from Barnhill ward is now secured in a locked, limited access area in Brent Civic Centre.

Brent Queensbury Tory council candidates support alleged 'Butcher of Gujarat'

Gardiner's support makes headlines in India

In  September 2013, Brent North Labour MP, Barry Gardiner, faced the wrath of demonstrators at Brent
Civic Centre LINK, over his controversial invitation to Narendra Modi, to address the House of Commons. Modi has been accused of collusion in the massacre of Muslims in the Gujarat in 2002 when more than 1,500 died and many were made homeless. Modi was Gujarat Chief Minister at the time and Human Rights Watch found evidence of state complicity in the violence. Modi leader, of the nationalist BJP is tipped to win the forthcoming April election with many fearing that it will herald an era of extreme Hindu nationalism and religious intolerance.

Kanta Mistry of the Queensbury Action Team

The September  invitation was issued by both Labour Friends of India and Conservative Friends of India.  An unofficial Lab-Con 'Coalition for Modi' exists in Brent North with members of  the 'Queensbury Conservative Action Team' among those campaigning for Modi. The action team are likely to be the Conservative candidates for Queensbury ward in the May local election.

Their website LINK has the strapline 'Local Issues-Local Action-Local Conservatives' which seems a long way from the politics of India on which they have been campaigning

In the Independent today LINK commentator Sunny Hundal describes their activities in an article which gives valuable background on the BJP's links:

British and American Hindus are an important source of support, canvassing and even postal votes for the BJP in India. More recently, they have helped to normalise Modi's reputation after the fallout from 2002. On Sunday afternoon, about 20 Gujaratis gathered at the back of a small restaurant in north-west London to discuss how they could help Modi spread his message. I had been told about it by a friend and decided simply to turn up and observe.

At their regular "Modi Tea Club" events, they raise funds and recruit volunteers. One group member, who is planning to run as a local councillor, applauded the US decision to meet Modi and said British Gujaratis had played an instrumental part. "The pressure we put [on the government] in the UK makes a difference around the world," he says, to applause. Next month, their idol will speak to them and hundreds of other groups around the world via satellite to energise them before the elections

Last night the Monitoring Group and Awaaz organised a parliamentary briefing entitled 'Narendra Modi and the rise of "Hindu Fascism" '. Their publicity read:

 The “Parliamentary Briefing & Forum” will discuss the politics of Narendra Modi. Modi is the current Chief Minister of Gujarat and is the Prime Ministerial candidate for the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance coalition for the upcoming 2014 national elections in India. He is also a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), an organisation that is described as Hindu nationalist, supremacist and fascist by scholars, journalists and human rights commentators.  The meeting will examine his role as the Head of the State Government during the Gujarat 2002 communal violence and pillage against the Muslim minority population that led to over 1500 deaths, hundreds of rapes against women and displacement of over 200,000 of people from their homes. The forum will also analyse the claim the Modi represents a model for ‘”good governance”. His supporter’s have worked hard to brand Gujarat as a state of dynamic development and economic growth and prosperity, using the slogan "Vibrant Gujarat". The facts, however, reveal that Gujarat has a relatively poor record when it comes to human development, poverty alleviation, nutrition and education.

It is not clear where the Conservative Party nationally stands on these activities by some of their local candidates, and indeed what the local party thinks about this controversial politician.

SAVE OUR TOWN HALL - SAVE OUR LOCAL DEMOCRACY

© Copyright Roger Kidd and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence

The local newspapers have this week carried reports of the dispute between Shahrar Ali, a local resident and member of the Green Party and Cllr Kanta Mistry who chairs the Kingsbury Area Consultative Forum. The immediate controversy is about the minutes of the Forum which Shahrar Ali claims were initially inaccurate and reworded by verbal agreement at a Forum meeting, and then reworded again prior to publication.

The effect of the rewording was to remove the rather stark claim by a council official that Brent Council had not consulted on the proposed civic centre which will replace the Town Hall and other major council buildings, 'because it did not need to' and substitute with 'The council had not consulted residents on whether a new civic centre needed to be built and had not done so because the business case for a new building was felt to be overwhelming'.

Underlying the dispute are wider issues about consultation:

* Should the council have the power to decide not to consult on major projects that impact on the people of Brent?

* Are the minutes of consultative forums the property of the meetings themselves or of the council members and officers?

*What happens when participants in the consultation process seek to extend democracy and accountability and the council seek to limit it?