Will you be watching the results?

Galaxy

Well i knew about labours strategy and mostly just watched in disbelief.
Surely no one believes that target. The figures on intimate partner violence against woman have remained the same for years.
There ideas of radicalisation I predict will be so narrow ( andrew tate) and not focus on the destructive impact of porn, etc.
You can't trust a strategy on consent, when five minutes ago they thought womens consent about single sex spaces wasn't important, they appointed a man whose association with a paedophile was known, etc etc.
There isn't a political party currently that doesn't use 'womens rights' as a means to score political points.
And don't get me started on 'sex work is work' from the greens.

Well at least they’re trying to do something.

Their not there

Well i knew about labours strategy and mostly just watched in disbelief.
Surely no one believes that target. The figures on intimate partner violence against woman have remained the same for years.
There ideas of radicalisation I predict will be so narrow ( andrew tate) and not focus on the destructive impact of porn, etc.
You can't trust a strategy on consent, when five minutes ago they thought womens consent about single sex spaces wasn't important, they appointed a man whose association with a paedophile was known, etc etc.
There isn't a political party currently that doesn't use 'womens rights' as a means to score political points.
And don't get me started on 'sex work is work' from the greens.

“Teachers will be given training to spot and tackle misogyny in the classroom, while high-risk pupils could be sent on behavioural courses as part of the government's long-awaited strategy to halve violence against women and girls (VAWG) in the next decade.
The plans for schools in England - which focus on preventing the radicalisation of young men - have been unveiled as part of a wider strategy which had been delayed three times.
Teachers will get specialist training around issues such as consent and the dangers of sharing intimate images.
Responding to the announcement, the domestic abuse commissioner for England and Wales, Dame Nicole Jacobs, said the commitments did "not go far enough".
She said while the strategy recognised the scale of the challenge, the level of investment "falls seriously short".
The £20m package will also see teachers get training around how to identify positive role models, and how to challenge unhealthy myths about women and relationships.
It will include a new helpline for teenagers to get support for concerns about abuse in their own relationships.
The government hopes that by tackling the early roots of misogyny, it will prevent young men from becoming violent abusers.
Under the new plans, schools will send high-risk students to get extra care and support, including behavioural courses to tackle their prejudice against women and girls”.
Not sure if this Labour initiative has been given much publicity?

The hypocrisy of Farage/Reform is 'rife' however. I have little confidence that Farage has any concern about women's right to vote (in secret or otherwise).

I.e. Women's rights are human rights! As set out in the Equality Act:

These include the right to live free from violence and discrimination; to enjoy the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; to be educated; to own property; to vote; and to earn an equal wage.

Farage has said clearly he and Reform do not believe in "woke" DEI principles and initiatives and seek to abolish the Equality Act if elected to government.

As I have previously stated Surfsup I stated it's vital to educate men to understand it is a criminal offence to coerce and seek to control the secret vote of their female partner and to prosecute where necessary. Ie I stand by my post in its entirety for all the reasons set out AND IN conjunction with all my other recent posts.

Tuliptree 11.41- you were absolutely right- it was only a matter of time 😉

Graphite 16.04. I agree with your post.

Surfsup15.42: "A fine example of hairsplitting from you. I was there, you weren’t. Booths are open on one side without doors. He wasn’t allowing her to vote in peace and I doubt she could even read English. He was directing her where to put her cross - end of…."

You've quoted one small part of my 15.27 post. I stand by my post in its entirety for all the reasons set out.

As I wrote upthread, nothing in the DV report says anything about who these “family voting” pairs were. Nothing about age, ethnicity, sex and certainly not how they voted.

Assuming DV has not leaked the detail of their findings to Reform, then it’s all conjecture from them and the usual race-baiting they love to engage in on a daily basis for the edification of the right-wing media.

If the allegation is of colluding, conferring or directing and there was of evidence of disability (although who’s to know from just looking?) then it could just as well have been a person of any colour or creed colluding, conferring or directing somebody else.

Nor is one sighting of someone being difficult at a polling station evidence of rifeness. For goodness sake. Almost 29 million votes were counted at the 2024 GE with almost 3 million votes separating the first and second parties and another 2.7 million separating second and third. I didn’t hear any shouting about “family voting” then only about how PR would have resulted in more representation in the HoC for the losing parties.

What has changed in less than two years other than Reform ramping up the race-baiting to eleven on the amp and being poor losers at G&D? They put up a terrible candidate who, had he won, was likely to have used G&D as Farage uses Clacton; doing nothing for the constituency.

I am not saying DV did not see what they think they saw only how they have interpreted and reported what they think they saw. They cannot have witnessed what was said and done unless they were standing right behind the people. Nor do they know how those people voted.

Lemonjam

You describe the man - "keep going in"- ie the man was going in and out- and the staff were telling him off whilst he was outside the booth. This suggests the individual inside the booth was able therefore to cast her vote secretly whilst she was in the booth alone whilst the staff were telling him off ouside of the booth, ie doing their job

A fine example of hairsplitting from you. I was there, you weren’t. Booths are open on one side without doors. He wasn’t allowing her to vote in peace and I doubt she could even read English. He was directing her where to put her cross - end of….

Surfsup 13.49: "I saw this myself when casting my vote at the last GE. A man kept going in the booth with a woman but the staff did tell him off a couple of times a couple of times. but he didn’t listen. That was one couple, however if there were many it could be quite intimidating. I find it odd that many on here are loathe to believe this happens - it’s rife".

Nobody has said it doesn't happen Surfsup. Reassuring to know the staff were checking and intervening appropriately on that occasion you witnessed this particular man's behaviour. You describe the man - "keep going in"- ie the man was going in and out- and the staff were telling him off whilst he was outside the booth. This suggests the individual inside the booth was able therefore to cast her vote secretly whilst she was in the booth alone whilst the staff were telling him off ouside of the booth, ie doing their job.

There is no verifiable evidence either that family voting is "rife", as Frage and the Daily Mail would have you believe; usual definition of rife being "common occurrence, widespread/ unchecked". If such evidence exists feel free to share.

No-one has said that there are no men, of any colour or creed that do not seek to coerce or persuade their female partners/wives how to cast their vote. The protection is that it is a criminal offence to do so, to make sure the men understand it is a criminal offence and the consequence is arrest and possible 6 month jail sentence. If a woman has not been able to cast her vote in secret to ensure that the man is arrested- the polling station staff have the man's ID after all - whether or not a police officer is in close proximity at that moment. There is no evidence that woman on that occasion was not able to cast her secret vote whilst the man was outside the pooling booth and she was inside.

As a fallout of the by election, Nigel Farage now wants to ban non citizens from Commonwealth countries from voting in parliamentary elections.

To be honest, I did not even know that the only reason I can vote is because I come from a Commonwealth country. I thought everyone with ILR (indefinitely leave to remain) can vote.

Farage specifically mentions banning foreigners from Pakistan and Bangladesh (which constitutes 25% to 35% of the residents in that by election). However, both Pakistan and Bangladesh allow dual nationality. People from both countries can take up British citizenships and exercise their tactical err.. family voting that way.

My only concern is if Reform gets into power in the next election, will Nigel Farage ban foreigners from claiming state pensions which is classified as benefits. I will be getting my new state pension in 2029 the very year the next election will be held.

I saw this myself when casting my vote at the last GE. A man kept going in the booth with a woman but the staff did tell him off a couple of times but he didn’t listen. That was one couple, however if there were many it could be quite intimidating. I find it odd that many on here are loathe to believe this happens - it’s rife.

I agree.

And ee have no idea who people voted for. There were eleven candidates. They could have been voting for The Official Monster Raving Looney Party for all anybody knows. 159 people did.

I think this will backfire on DV. Their own methods will come under close scrutiny. Which 22 polling stations did they go to and why did they chose those and not the other 23? As an alleged non-partisan organisation, their findings are being used for partisan purposes.

Of course, this is all part of Reform wanting to disrupt the democratic process. Farage has form. Follow the Russian money and read the Epstein files.

Graphite 12.55."They say that signage to discourage family voting was missing in polling stations but not whether it was missing in the polling stations where family voting is alleged to have occurred"

DV has also not specified what specific signage was missing on occasion. John Ault I understand would like specific signinage that prohibits 'family voting' but the Electoral Commission specifies exactly what signage is required in polling stations as I set out in previous post and its not that. The DVs may be measuring John Ault's preference rather than Electoral Commission requirements- we just don't know....

Tuliptree 12.20 - "I’m beginning to wonder why DV is not a registered charity".

Possibly to avoid such level of scrutiny? Possibly because it was a company started by a politician- previously working for the Liberal Democrats as an agent? Democracy Volunteers Limited is a registered Uk company.

I wonderwhy DV Ltd doesn't now join up with Charitable Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust "UK Democracy Fund" activity, ie after John Ault, DV director achieved his aim in amending the Secret Ballot Act in 2023? JRSST has the same aim- to build a healthy democracy, has greater charitable funding, uses research to inform its activities and its reports of a much higher evidence based quality.

The Ballot Secrecy Bill 2023 created a criminal offence for individuals specifically to:
1) accompany a voter into a polling booth
2) position near an elector inside a polling station with the intention of influencing how they would cast their vote.

Thus I am not sure in the recent DV Ltd Gorton and Denton report how many times:
a) DV volunteers witnessed 1) above-
b) how many times DVs witnessed 1) above but there were legitimate reasons (e.g a disability which may or may not be immediately obvious) of which the polling staff were aware and had provided for but DV volunteers were not aware
c) how many times, and on what evidential basis the DVs witnessed 2) above, how near were they and on what basis were they able to objectively evidence they were influencing the voter to cast their ballot
d) how many of these occasions did the polling staff intervened e) how many of these occasions did the DV intervene as they are allowed to do
f) how many of these occasions did the DVs escalate any irregularities to the polling staff
g) how many of these occasions did the DVs ask any questions of the voter/family member as they are allowed to do?
h) why doesn't DV collaborate more with the polling staff to prevent voting fraud?

The DV report "findings" though a very small sample- could be legitimate but without knowing what DV actually measured and the evidence to support findings - the report can and has been used as a political, racist weapon unjustifiably and without verifiable foundation.

I agree absolutely that DV's methods and certainly their report writing should be questioned. It is their extrapolation of very small amounts of numerical data with no other context and use of alarming language which has given Reform the ammunition for this onslaught.

They do claim to be non-partisan and there is no indication in their report regarding age, ethnicity or sex of the people alleged to be family voting. So how has this ended up as an attack on allegedly "foreign-born" voters.

They say that signage to discourage family voting was missing in polling stations but not whether it was missing in the polling stations where family voting is alleged to have occurred.

Of course there shouldn't be conference and collusion in a polling booth. The only direction permissable is to give assistance to someone who is disabled but clearly not direction on who to vote for.

Again, we do not know what DV witnessed other than 32 cases of two people in a booth together over 17 hours from a total of almost 37,000 votes counted.

LemonJam

No I get your "sarcasm' Tuliptree 😉😊. I just wanted to set the record straight to hopefully avoid that scenario...

Oh good but you won’t avoid that scenario - wear it as a badge of honour 😂

I’m beginning to wonder why DV is not a registered charity. There’s a lot more public scrutiny of a charity’s activities including public AGMs and public accounts available on line. Plus trustees

No I get your "sarcasm' Tuliptree 😉😊. I just wanted to set the record straight to hopefully avoid that scenario...

If Democracy Volunteer observations are going to lead to Farage making complaints to the police about family voting on a racist platform and headlines in the DM such as this morning which influence voters- their performance also requires scrutiny. I.e. - Why are the not "aiding" in maintaining the secrecy of the ballot b raising any irregularities on the spot with election officials, or asking questions of the voters in the circumstances the observe the possibility of them not going into a voting booth alone and election officials are not present to assist and guide? Or are they just overhearing conversations that might potentially lead to a 'family vote- who knows- but we deserve to know. DV should be as transparent as election officials otherwise what is the point?

Lemonjam

Tuliptree- some posters might seek that approach, however for the record I DO NOT support 'family voting

Sorry - my sarcasm failed again. It’s just that anytime a poster provides a logical coherent fact based argument that challenges the knee jerk populist reaction then that poster is generally accused of supporting the devil’s work.

Tuliptree- some posters might seek that approach, however for the record I DO NOT support 'family voting'

Graphite: "The only thing that needs to be ascertained is how and why polling staff allowed those to go to the booths in pairs".

Thats part of it- ie in what circumstances and how often did Voters not enter the voting booth as an individual, how was this recorded, and what evidence if any was asked for about nature and level of assistance required if not able to cast a vote as an individual in secret as the law requires.

However why only hold the polling station officials to account and not the DVs role- that is even handed and necessary in my view.

DV cannot possible say whether they witnessed collusion or direction or even conference from 32 pairs of people over 17 hours of observation unless they were standing right behind them and therefore impinging on their privacy.

The only thing that needs to be ascertained is how and why polling staff allowed those to go to the booths in pairs.

Those who have voted for years know the procedure but some newer voters whether young or new to the country may not be familar with it. It's up to polling staff to ensure the right procedures are followed and the right signage to help people is displayed.

Absolutely brilliant post Lemonjam- no doubt it will be summarised by some posters as supporting family voting.

Ofcourse both Democracy Volunteers and polling station officials each have their own political views and values. However they all will be expected to be impartial when carrying out their roles. Both have a code of practise and conduct to abide by. It is absurd to accuse either DVs or polling station staff of being more or less partial than the other without evidence.

The role of the the DV is set out in electoral.commission.com "Electoral observation at United Kingdom elections and referendums". Having looked at this in detail the key aspects of investigation to determine whether the DV report is fit for purpose and verifiable its necessary to consider whther they abided by their role requirements as set out:
1) DVs "must aid in maintaining the secrecy of the ballot" 3.11.
2) DVs must "bring irregularities, fraud or significant problems to the attention of election officials on the spot".3.14
3) DVs "may ask and answer questions of voters" 3.16
4) DVs "must ensure that all their observations are accurate. Observations must be comprehensive, noting positive and negative factors, distinguishes between significant and insignificant factors and identifying patterns that could have an important impact on the integrity of electoral processes. Observer's judgement must be based on the highest standards for accuracy of information and impartiality of analysis, distinguishing subjective factors from objective evidence". 3.20

As I stated in an earlier post, I fail to understand why no individual DV brought any concerns about irregular "family voting" to the attention of any election officials on the spot, at the time as required in section 3.14. Also we have no detail or evidence to determine whether DVs observations of "family voting" sufficient distinguished between significant and insignificant factors and were based on the highest stands for accuracy etc as set out in 3.20. I fail to understand why the DV report did not set out the DV methodology and evidence collected in each polling stations to substantiate the report met the requirements of 3.20.

The voting process and role of the polling station staff is set out in the electoral commission.com "Handbook for polling station staff". The issues to determine for the polling station staff in light of DV concerns I would suggest are:
1) did all the polling station staff adhere to all the process requirements e.g. have the necessary signs and notices ( page 8 in handbook) - most importantly "How to vote at this election" displayed inside and outside the polling stationing and inside the polling booth "how to mark the ballot paper".
2) Did the polling staff have alternative language information available on request for voters whose first language was not English
3) What processes were followed to ensure all voters entered the polling booth as an INDIVIDUAL to cast their vote secretly.
4) What processes were followed to for voters that required assistance and did not enter the polling booth as an INDIVIDUAL to cast their vote secretly. How was this recorded?

As Farage made a complaint to GM Police I trust and hope the GMP investigate both the polling station staff and the DVs performance using the respective handbooks as guidance to be even handed and evidence based.

I saw the front pages of newspapers today on BBC News website. Today's Daily Mail front page in capitals: "FOREIGN -BORN VOTERS STOLE BY-ELECTION BLASTS FARAGE".

I'm disappointed on various levels- that Farage is copying Trump "the stolen election" rhetoric when it suits him, on a racist platform and without sufficient verifiable evidence. Farage hypocritically only refers to DV reports about "family voting" concerns when it suits him, ie not when he wins but only when he looses. E.g. he paid no such heed to the similar DV reports highlighting "family voting" concerns in the May 2025 by election when Reform beat Labour by JUST 6 votes, instead just accepted and celebrated the win. I'm not surprised but disappointed that Farage and newspapers like the DM make such claims BEFORE the police report and any necessary evidence is available to support such allegations. And lastly there has been so little attention paid to the claims made in the DV report, e.g. why did they not raise any such irregularities to election officials on the spot as required to do, on what basis and evidence did they make such claims etc.