It’s quite likely that the referendum will be held on the same day as local elections, such as the May 2011 local elections.

The arguments over electoral reform will attract to the ballot box some people who don’t usually vote in local elections. If the pro-AV campaign goes well (and it starts with a lead) many of those people will be well disposed towards Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

And what will they find when they get handed another ballot paper, this one for the local elections?

If the answer is no Liberal Democrat candidates, that will immediately send them a strong message about how the party isn’t a serious party around their way. That may not be a fair view all the time, but it’s the obvious one to take.

Not only is it the obvious one to take, it’s one that many members do take and do feel very strongly about. During my time working for the party, there was voluminous and strongly expressed feedback each spring via the party’s online channels as people expressed their disappointment / disgust at turning up to vote and finding no Liberal Democrat candidate on the ballot paper. Cue complaints about party not being serious, having let them down, not being worth supporting in the future and so on.

It’s a problem when local and general elections are combined – and I’ve a strong hunch that missing local election candidates often cost us votes in that Westminster constituency because we’ve sent people such a negative message about ourselves just before they mark the ballot paper. But at least in those circumstances there is a Liberal Democrat on the other ballot paper that the person is given (Speaker’s constituency etc excepted).

There won’t be that safety net in England in May 2011. (In Scotland and Wales we’ll be there on the devolved ballot papers, but there won’t be local elections).

The problem is more than just likely lost votes or certain damaged credibility – it also puts people off offering to help.

The solution?

Put up more local election candidates.

Finding people and putting together the paperwork takes time. It can be tough, but where we really put our minds to it it is often possible to put up far more candidates than we’ve done for a long time previously – witness the success in putting up more candidates to challenge the BNP this May.

So if your local party has council elections next year, why not start your planning now? You can even plan to start collecting signatures for nomination papers from 1st December when the new electoral register comes out. You’ll have to watch out for people who subsequently drop off the register, but having to make up some gaps in your lists of 10 signatures in March is much better than starting with a completely empty slate in March.

The Commission carried out a survey of local election candidates from the June 2009 campaign and found:

• Conservative candidates were most likely to have produced a campaign leaflet (98% versus 70% for Lib Dems and 60% for Labour)
• Labour and Conservative candidates were equally likely to have had telephone canvassing in their campaign (27% each, with 21% for the Lib Dems)
• On average, Conservative candidates spent 21 hours a week campaigning during the campaign (excluding those who self-identified as paper candidates). Liberal Democrats were just behind on 20 hours and Labour lagging on 17 hours.
• Liberal Democrat candidates were most likely to use the internet for canvassing, though the different is not statistically significant (8% compared with 7% for the other two). This figure understates the overall use of the internet given the question was restricted to using it “for canvassing”. Independent candidates were far more likely to have used the internet in this way, coming in at 28%.
• Labour candidates were the most likely to have contacted the media (44%, with 31% for the Lib Dems and 20% for the Conservatives).
• 90% of Conservative candidates said they enjoyed the campaigning, compared with 86% of Liberal Democrats and 80% of Labour candidates. (Unfortunately there isn’t a breakdown relating happiness to result in their ward!)

Once you get beyond leafleting, the range of campaign activities used drops off sharply across all three of the main parties. Even so, the amount of hours that candidates of all parties put in is impressive – and a reflection of the voluntary hard work that often goes unrecognised but is vital to making our democracy meaningful.

It’s common to see Liberal Democrats come in third in such surveys because the party is strong across a smaller proportion of the country than the other two main parties. The national figures therefore reveal relatively little about the party’s strength when it is serious fighting a seat.

However, Labour’s weakness across the board compared with the Conservatives is a strong illustration of just how deep the demotivation and organisational decay goes in the Labour Party at the moment.

The question of who can stand for election to a local council should be clearly defined and easy to understand – so that those new to politics can be candidates, so that voters don’t end up with a false choice where not all the candidates are actually allowed to be candidates and so that elections can be about choices between people and policies, rather than battles between lawyers.

In England and Wales the law was last codified and laid down in the 1972 Local Government Act. With the passage now of nearly forty years, plus frequent subsequent legislation which gave the opportunity to clarify any ambiguities, matters should now be clear.

Alas, though, a combination of poor drafting, changing interpretations and equivocation from the Electoral Commission has left part of the law in an ambiguous mess.

Section 79 of the act gives five different routes by which someone may be qualified to stand:

(a) … he is and thereafter he continues to be a local government elector for the area of the authority; or
(b) he has during the whole of the twelve months preceding that day occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises in that area; or
(c) his principal or only place of work during that twelve months has been in that area; or
(d) he has during the whole of those twelve months resided in that area; or
(e) in the case of a member of a parish or community council he has during the whole of those twelve months resided either in the parish or community or within three miles of it.

The problem is with (b). At first glance, the reference to “owner or tenant” suggests that owning property is sufficient to qualify you to stand. But what does “occupied” earlier in the clause mean? And how does that leave (b) meaning something that isn’t already covered by the other clauses?

Until the last few years, most usually (b) has been interpreted to mean owning or renting land or property, with “occupied” being taken as an archaic or obscure phrase that doesn’t alter that basic meaning. On this basis, a farmer who lives and works elsewhere but owns a field in a council area could stand, as could someone who lives and works elsewhere but owns a property and rents it out to someone else.

This was the gist of the Electoral Commission’s advice on the topic for many years, and gives a meaning to (b) that is clearly different from the other clauses.

However, over the last few years, an increasing number of people – particularly legal officers at councils – have taken a different view. They have instead emphasised the word “occupied” and suggested that to qualify under this clause, someone must either live there or be there through work much of the time. Objections that this runs counter to Parliament’s intention, because it reduces (b) to being just another form of (c) or (d), have been rebuffed.

I have much simplified the detailed legal argument on both sides of this question, but the key point is that the meaning of (b) increasingly splits the electoral legal world into two contradictory camps.

A growing handful of people have therefore been left in an invidious position where they have got contradictory advice from council legal officers and the Electoral Commission on whether or not they are qualified to stand. In one case, the Electoral Commission even changed their advice part way through a dispute. In another case, a new legal officer taking up post resulted in someone being advised they couldn’t stand even though this ran counter to previous advice.

Because of the huge expense of taking a test case to the courts, in all cases either someone has robustly stood their ground and dared the council or others to run up expensive legal bills to argue that they aren’t qualified, or they’ve gone for the quiet life of not taking a risk and pulling out, even though it’s far from clear that they are not allowed to stand. Either way, not terribly satisfactory.

That is one reason why, over a period of time, I persistently lobbied the Electoral Commission to come up with clear, written advice on the matter – and advice that they would be willing to stand by if queried. After protracted delays, advice was issued at the last moment for this year’s elections, with a circular being sent out on 1 May.

The circular is careful to circumscribe what the Commission believes is clear and what is left to judgement:

9. The person must occupy ‘land or other premises’. The Commission considers that the inclusion of the words ‘other premises’ to be taken as something other than land, i.e. some form of structure. Because ‘land’ and ‘other premises’ are alternatives it is, in theory, possible for a person to satisfy this provision by occupying land only. There are some structures which might, arguably, fall outside the term ‘premises’ (e.g. tent, caravan, house boat, mobile home). However, a person occupying such a structure need only establish occupancy of the land on which his or her tent (for example) is located.

10. If land or premises is divided by an area boundary, the land/premises is ‘in that area’ with respect to both areas demarcated by the boundary.

11. The person must occupy the ‘land or other premises’ as an ‘owner’ or ‘tenant’. Ownership may be established by showing title to the land or premises in question. Tenancy is established by showing a lease over the land. In various circumstances, a lease will survive despite having expired and the parties failing to sign a new lease – the tenancy survives through tacit agreement between the parties. Therefore there may be circumstances in which a person’s tenancy of land or premises might need to be established by evidence other than a current lease.

12. The person must have ‘occupied’ the land or premises. Therefore, in addition to establishing legal ownership or legal tenancy, the person must establish that they have occupied the land or premises. This is a question of fact in each case. Having regard to case law on the meaning of the term ‘occupy’ in other contexts, we do not believe it is necessary for a person to be personally resident on the land or premises (this is in any event covered by s79(1)(d)). However, we consider that it requires something to be actually done on the land or premises – an empty unlocked house can not be described as ‘occupied’. It also requires a sufficient degree of control to prevent strangers from interfering with the land or premises. If a person has sublet their land or premises to another person this will point against them having ‘occupied’ it themselves.

13. The person must have occupied the land or premises ‘during the whole of the twelve months preceding’ the day on which the person nominates for candidacy. People leave their residence for extended periods for holidays or other reasons, how long an absence will prevent a person from claiming they have occupied the land or premises for the preceding year should be worked out by reference to all other factors. For instance, whether the person has allowed others to occupy the land or premises in the person’s absence, and the reason the person has been absent.

14. For example, a person who is absent from their home for 2 months, caring for an elderly parent, might be considered to have retained occupancy of the land or premises for the purposes of the legislation – while a person who is absent for 2 months, because they have relocated to an alternative residence, and who leases their home while they are away from it should not be considered to have retained occupancy for the purposes of the legislation. Whether an extended absence during a 12 month period precludes qualification is necessarily worked out on a case by case basis.

This circular is significantly different from previous Electoral Commission advice and, overall, the tenor of it moves towards a more restrictive view of what (b) permits, but it is far from being clearly defined or easy to understand. What does “something” in paragraph 12 mean, for example?

An unfortunate effect of the Commission’s delay in setting down its revised views is that the chance to use the latest round of electoral law changes in Parliament to tidy up the situation has been missed.

So beware if you or anyone you know stands in future relying solely on the (b) qualification. Because if asked, “So what does this mean?” the answer is: “Lots of people disagree and we’re waiting for an expensive test case to find out”.

Taunton Conservative Candidate Forced To Apologise For Slurs Following Police Investigation

The Somerset County Council election took a step into the gutter today when Conservative candidate in West Taunton, Nick James, was forced to issue a public apology for personal attacks on his Lib Dem opponent, Alan Paul, and non-political officers of the Council. The apology came after Police had warned the Conservative agent that a last-minute Conservative leaflet was illegal.

Hat-tip: Liberal England

(Click on thumbnail for larger version.)

Throw out bad councils, and vote for Lib Dems in Europe…
The most consistently wise party on Europe, [the Lib Dems] never flirted with Tory press populism, but that principled stand came at a high price. On the economy or crime co-operation, “stronger together, poorer apart” is a good Lib Dem pro-EU slogan. They best deserve the vote of every pro-European on Thursday…

It is bad for local government when councils are voted in or out regardless of quality, and bad too when virtually all councils are of one colour. It should take no nose pegs to vote in good councils and throw out bad ones. But local voters insist on using local votes to throw stones at national parties. So we look set for Conservative hegemony locally and in Westminster and European parliaments. To avoid that, vote whichever decent party locally can best hold the floodgates against a blue wipeout.

UPDATE: Things also went wrong in Riverside ward, where the UKIP logo appeared next to the Peace candidate.

Nick Clegg is the most instinctively European leader at Westminster. That is currently a lonely position, but the Lib Dems have a decent record of taking minority stands that are later vindicated. On the environment, on civil liberties and on the mounting debt bubble, the Lib Dems were quietly but consistently ahead of the Westminster curve.

Likewise on transparency. In 2007, they opposed the Conservative move, tacitly encouraged by Labour, to exempt Parliament from the Freedom of Information Act. The Lib Dems alone took a party line for openness…

While MPs from all parties are tainted, the parties themselves are not equally guilty. A credible record of support for transparency and for constitutional reform reflects well on Nick Clegg’s team.

This Thursday’s vote is being held in a uniquely febrile climate. It should be about Europe; it will be about the expenses scandal. On both counts, it is a moment to reward the principled consistency of the Liberal Democrats.

A particularly odd decision given how common instructions are which show dummy party and candidate names.