The Times should be ashamed of its misreporting

The Times newspaper has, over the past four years, built up a reputation for some quite disgraceful, inaccurate, dishonest and sensationalist reporting of cases of electoral fraud; and sadly, yesterday, we got another dose of its ongoing efforts to destroy confidence in our voting system.

Reporting on the case of six Conservative activists jailed for postal vote fraud in Slough, the paper again dredged up the same tired, discredited and unsubstantiated, ignorant and simply false claims to fit the editorial slant it has had for the past five years.

Before I debunk The Times' claims, let me just put on record that I am delighted at the sentences handed down: if anything they should have been even longer and I hope the same fate befalls anyone attempting voter fraud. But let's turn to the three claims made by The Times in yesterday's report.

Claim 1: "The rigged poll in Slough in May 2007 highlighted how easy the introduction of postal-voting-on-demand has made it to steal elections"

Firstly, I'm not sure how a successful prosecution and imprisonment of the offenders proves that it is easy to steal elections: doesn't it actually show that you can't get away with voter fraud?

But second, the May 2007 elections (which this case concerned) were the last to take place before Labour in Government introduced much tougher anti-fraud measures: which include everyone who wants a postal vote providing a signature and date of birth when applying AND when they send back their vote - which are checked by polling staff. So contrary to the system making it easy to steal elections, it's incredibly hard to cheat - especially on a scale big enough to alter a result.

Claim 2: "prosecutors descibed [this successful conviction] as part of an epidemic threatening to destroy British democracy"

In the sense that this was an accurate account of what the lead barrister - someone not paid to be impartial or accurate but rather to paint a picture in the interests of securing a conviction - said, I take it that The Times has reported correctly. But the fact is there is no epidemic of fraud sweeping the nation and reporting such a claim without any rebuttal or counter case clearly shows that the paper believes this claim to have foundation.

Yet this what the Electoral Commission - the body tasked with overseeing and defending our electoral system - says about postal voting from last year's elections (and you can read their in-depth report, jointly published with the Association of Chief Police Officers, here):

"Elections in England and Wales last May were 'free from major incidents' of fraud.Of 16 million votes cast in local, London mayoral and London Assembly ballots, 103 had resulted in malpractice cases. Of these, one has so far resulted in a conviction, with nine cautions issued."

16 million votes. 103 cases. 1 conviction.

How is that indicative of an "epidemic" of voter fraud? In fact 103 claims of voter fraud against 16 million individuals is substantially lower than the proportion of claims of any other type of fraud per 16 million individuals. And how is such dishonest and sensationalised reporting in the public interest?

Claim 3: "Mr Miskin [the lead prosecutor] referred to a report by Richard Mawrey QC, the Electoral Commissioner, which served as a warning that unless the election procedures are changed the nation's democracy will be at stake. Citing the report, Mr Miskin said 'The systems to deal with fraud are not working well, they are not working badly. The fact is that there are no real systems."

This is simply - factually - untrue. I've explained above what the systems are: personal identifiers that are incredibly difficult to forge without knowing the intimate details of the voter they're attempting to defraud, and which are checked as the postal votes are returned.

In fact, I reported a few days ago how, at my insistence, every single postal vote cast in Wandsworth will be checked, rather than a representative sample - which is what the Council was planning to do until my intervention.

For background, Richard Mawrey was a judge presiding over the most notorious case of electoral fraud, in Birmingham, committed five years ago. The Times devoted a huge amount of newsprint to that story which they were right to do - it was a shocking attempt at widespread voter fraud. But they weren't so attentive when one of those Judge Mawrey convicted won his appeal against his sentence, or when many of the claims he made were challenged by electoral experts.

Unfortunately, then as now, the Times reported subjective claims by Mr Mawrey as fact without checking their veracity. So much for the Newspaper of Record.

Voter fraud cannot ever be eradicated - any more than any other type of crime can be. Nor is voter fraud solely confined to postal voting: far more prosecuted cases of electoral fraud have been committed in polling stations than from postal votes.

There will, sadly, always be individuals determined to commit fraud. But it can be - and has been -made incredibly difficult to get away with and there is no - repeat NO - evidence The Times will be able to produce to rebut that fact, because it doesn't exist.