Friday, November 07, 2008


Was there massive vote fraud in Glenrothes, in Scotland, where Gordon Brown's Labour party won a surprise victory?

In November 2008, at Glenrothes, the Scottish National Party (anti-war and in favour of Scotland benefiting from its oil wealth) was facing Gordon Brown's unpopular Labour Party (pro-war).

The SNP has kept council tax down and reduced business rates.

The SNP had increased the education budget by 10% and hired new teachers across the region.

"Pundits had predicted that the SNP would capture the seat left vacant by the death of MP John McDougall but in end the result was not even close with Lindsay Roy winning by almost 7,000 votes." (Labour wins Glenrothes by-election)

Remember the 'vote fraud' in the USA in 2004.

Election day exit polls showed that Kerry won both the electoral and the popular vote with Kerry getting 51% and Bush 48%.

Early on the morning of 3 November the media continued to show Kerry’s national win - and Kerry's win in Ohio & Florida.

CNN’s website on 3 November at 12:21AM showed Kerry’s win in Ohio State. (

Bush and his cronies had to concoct a story to explain Kerry's last minute defeat.

Did Lindsay Roy really win?


A. The media, and the bookies, were predicting an SNP victory. (SNP on a high as bookies cut odds /Labour heading for Glenrothes defeat as voters go to the polls )

According to The Telegraph, 7 November 2008, a Scottish National Party win was predicted as the count began.

"Labour insiders said they were pleased to be in contention on the last day of campaigning, but claimed the party was behind and was bracing itself for defeat when the result was announced in the early hours of Friday morning.

"Although Labour is understood to have won the postal vote by about 10 percentage points, heavy rain from mid-afternoon could have taken away the last glimmer of hope of clawing back the Nationalists' lead.

"The first ballot boxes arrived at Fife Institute at 10.15pm, with both sides refusing to make a prediction, other than the result would be close, but SNP activists markedly more upbeat."

B. According to The Scotsman newspaper, 8 November 2008 (Glenrothes aftermath? ):

"The Glenrothes result was unexpected... An hour-and-a-half after the polls closed on Thursday night... TV commentators told viewers the SNP was on course to win."

C. "The SNP were on 1/5 to win before Ladbrokes stopped betting. And Labour... closed as 11/4 outsiders...

"Ladbrokes spokesman Nick Weinberg, said: 'We were as stunned as anyone by the result. The SNP were all the rage in the days before, while Labour appeared to be friendless.'"

D. The Scottish Sunday Express, 2 November 2008, (POLL PUTS BROWN ON BRINK ) stated about the undecided voters:

"As many as two-thirds of these are ... ready to support the Nationalists...

"Internal polling for the SNP ... suggests the party is on course to give the Prime Minister another bloody nose."

E. There was talk that some elderly voters, particularly from Labour-supporting former mining villages, were upset by the local SNP council's £11 per hour 'care charges'; but Glasgow Labour Council's 'care charges' are £16.50 per hour.

Voters were more likely to be interested in high fuel charges.

F. According to The Times, Scottish edition, 8 November 2008:

"In the last hours before the polls closed, there was a high turnout in parts of the constituency where the SNP was strongest...

"Someone telephoned No 10 to tell the Prime Minister that an SNP victory was ... on the cards."

G. According to The Telegraph (Glenrothes by election: Victory confounded pundits and party.), 7 November 2008:

"Labour's unexpected and resounding win in Glenrothes confounded pundits, MPs and party supporters alike. And last night it was still confounding many of those closest to Gordon Brown...

"When the polls closed on Thursday night the Prime Minister had just been told that Labour was likely to lose the seat it had held at the last election with a comfortable 10,000 majority.

"Mr Brown went to bed thinking Labour had lost."

Note that according to The Telegraph, Gordon Brown and those closest to him believed that Labour had lost. No doubt they had seen canvas returns suggesting an SNP victory.

H. "Up until the opening of the ballot boxes, the (Scottish National) party's number crunchers, Mark Shaw and chief executive Peter Murrell, had been confident of a win by around 1000 votes, because that was what their initial survey told them. Doorstep canvassing suggested little had changed through the course of the campaign." - Sunday Herald 10 November 2008.

2. One way to fiddle the result is to use postal votes.

"There've been record numbers of applications for postal votes. On past form this means that one of the parties will be stuffing the ballot boxes with fake votes. Anyone care to guess which party that would be?" Comment at Guy Fawkes' blog of parliamentary plots, rumours and conspiracy.

3. George Galloway is one of the people who has accused Labour of electoral fraud in the uk

"Respect MP George Galloway ... accused New Labour of a 'major dirty tricks operation' during the general election and alleged that there could be thousands of 'ghost voters' in his east London constituency...

"Mr Galloway accused the authority of being 'in the grip of a corrupt political culture'.

"Giving evidence to the London assembly on postal voting, he said the Bethnal Green and Bow contest - which saw him defeat the sitting Labour MP Oona King - would 'disgrace a banana republic'.

"The MP told the Electoral Review Committee at City Hall: 'My suspicion is that there were many hundreds and perhaps in the low thousands of people on the register in Bethnal Green and Bow who should not be for one reason or other.'

"Mr Galloway said his anti-war Respect party had notified the police and the council of up to six specific examples of potential postal fraud vote, including a closed down nurses' home residence which received 200 postal ballot forms, and five residences where large numbers of voters, who did not live there, were registered."

"A Guardian investigation into those Brick Lane addresses - quoted by Mr Galloway - found that the flats were either unoccupied, were business addresses or had long been inhabited by different people."

Would the security services get involved in Scottish politics? Was Willie MacRae murdered?

In elections for the Scottish Parliament in 2007, there were suspicions of major fraud.

The map shows Dumfries and Galloway in dark blue.

The 2007 elections in Scotland were like those in Florida a few years ago.

"'This is Scotland's Florida on a vast scale.'... More than 100,000 votes, 10% of the poll, were being classified as spoiled." The screw up

The CIA, of course, may take an interest in Scottish politics.

"The new US consul in Scotland, questioned the effect of separation on American energy firms and criticised the SNP’s anti-Nato policy." US consul questions wisdom of Scottish independence

In 2007, the result was very close, contrary to what the polls predicted.

Official result for the Scottish Parliament - 129 out of 129 seats declared (5 May 2007)
SNP: 47 (+20)
Labour: 46 (-4)
Conservative: 17 (-1)
Lib Dems: 16 (-1)

The YouGov poll (2 May 2007) put the SNP six points ahead in the constituency vote and five points ahead in the regional vote and predicted the SNP would end up with six more seats than Labour in the Scottish Parliament.

The SNP recorded swings against Labour in all of the first few seats to declare, from 4.4% in Glasgow Anniesland to a massive 15% in Airdrie and Shotts.

But, some funny things then began to happen in the most marginal seats.

Were the Scottish elections rigged?

1. There was something fishy in the Scottish Highlands and Islands regional list ballot, which gave Labour 4 members of parliament and the SNP none. The SNP demanded a recount. The final result saw Labour get three, the Tories two and the SNP two. Grandfather was SNP election hero

2. Is there something fishy about the result in Cumbernauld & Kilsyth, a top target seat for the SNP?

May 2007 election result

Labour 12,672 votes +6.4% (an increase since the last election)

SNP 10,593 votes +0.8%

Liberal Democrat 1,670 votes +1.1%

Conservative 1,447 votes +1.5%

3. Is there something fishy about the Scottish Constituency of Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, a top target seat for the SNP.

May 2007 election result:

Conservative 13,387 votes +6.0%

SNP 10,054 votes -4.7%

Labour 4,935 votes +1.8%

The very last poll in Scotland, before the 3 May 2007 election, showed the SNP well in the lead in Scotland as a whole. Analysis: SNP holds its nerve

In Scotland, the Conservative's share of the vote had dropped from 17% (2003 election) to 13% according to the 2 May 2007 YouGov poll.

The Conservatives are not wildly popular in Scotland. Tory Deputy Presiding Officer Murray Tosh failed to win his party's top target of Dumfries, which remained with Labour's Elaine Murray. (Chaos at the counts mars a night of success for the SNP )

"TORY MSPs are clueless no-hopers - according to Scotland's only Conservative MP. Shadow Scots secretary David Mundell delivered the damning verdict in a memo to leader David Cameron." The Daily Record - NEWS - SCOTS TORIES ARE CLUELESS

In Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Dumfries and Galloway area in Southern Scotland) there have, reportedly, been a fair number of SNP posters and an almost total absence of Conservative or Labour posters.

The Regional Voting result in Scotland South was SNP five members elected, Conservatives one elected, Liberal Democrats one elected. SNP 51.52% (+ 33.15%, Conservatives 10.44% (-13.8) , Labour 8.89% (-21.1%), Liberal Democrats 9.37%)

In the Council Elections in Dumfries and Galloway, the leader of the Labour group failed to be elected and the leader of the Conservative group failed to be elected. The SNP doubled their representation.

Was there postal vote fraud in the parliamentary election, with Labour making sure that the Conservatives would win Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, in order to keep out the SNP?

Why did some people not get their postal votes in time?

"Some 1,600 voters in Dumfries and Galloway complained they are still waiting for ballots to arrive. The council reassured Scots they should soon arrive, adding forms were posted last Friday." 'Small number' of Scots could lose their vote

In Birmingham, 22,500 postal votes may have been faked in 2004. Abuse fears over postal voting

"Scotland on Sunday has spoken to members of the Asian community in Glasgow who claim that fraud there is rife. Muhammad Shoaib, who left the Labour party to become an independent candidate last year, claimed there was 'a deliberate campaign' to abuse the postal vote system."Police alert on election fraud

What about the Dumfries and Galloway police? They are the people who investigated the Lockerbie Bomb. News - Police chief- Lockerbie evidence was faked

4. DESPITE a massive 15.2% swing to the SNP, Labour's Karen Whitefield has held on to the constituency of Airdrie and Shotts. Labour's majority in Airdrie and Shotts is 1,448. The number of rejected ballot papers is 1,506. Labour hold Airdrie and Shotts despite huge swing to SNP

5. In Aberdeen Central, Labour's Lewis Macdonald held onto his seat ahead of the SNP's Karen Shirron. Labour's majority in Aberdeen Central is 382 votes - The number of rejected ballot papers is 796 votes. Aberdeen votes re-count under way

6. Which other results look suspicious?

Almost no high profile Labour figures have lost their seats.

The Labour vote is suspiciously high in certain key marginals.

In Linlithgow, Labour got 12,715 votes + 1.1%.
The SNP got 11,565 votes + 4.4%.

The number of rejected votes was bigger than the successful candidate's winning margin.

This happened in about 1 in 6 constituencies.

7. "The voting process has been suspended in several locations due to problems with electronic counting. There have also been an unprecented number of spoilt ballot papers in all areas.

"In Airdrie and Shotts the number of spoilt ballots was 1,536 - 90 higher than the majority of Labour's Karen Whitefield. There were 2,035 spoilt papers in Glasgow Shettleston, 1,850 in Glasgow Baillieston and 1,736 in the city's Anniesland constituency. " - Early results show swing to SNP

There have been problems with a new automated counting system at a number of counts. - Elections marred by vote problems

8. "An absolute shambles, postal votes, different methods of voting, machines not working. Disgusted." - Graham, Dundee. Elections marred by vote problems

"What do you think about the number of rejected papers? - It's obscene and a sad reflection on the people who 'organised' it. Is Scotland's electoral system now in disrepute? - Yes, I will not trust the result." - J, Dundee Elections marred by vote problems

"Annul the results and do it again. This is a farce and is in no way representative of the nations wishes." - Keiron, Central Fife Elections marred by vote problems

9. "As many as 22,500 postal voters have dropped off the voting register in Birmingham in the wake of police investigations into allegations of fraud in the city three years ago. The massive drop in voters came after officers probed claims that postal votes were being stolen or filled in by party workers in the city in 2004. In some cases, people turned up to vote only to be told that a postal vote in their name had already been submitted." Abuse fears over postal voting

10. The YouGov survey - completed on 2 May 2007 - shows:

Constituency vote

SNP 37%
Labour 31%

Regional vote

SNP 32%
Labour 27%

Calculations by Prof John Curtice of Strathclyde University based on YouGov's findings suggest:
SNP 45 seats
Labour 39 seats

Weber Shandwick's Poll of Polls suggested the SNP would have 48 seats (Daily Telegraph 3 May 2007).

In the May 2006 local elections in England, there was evidence of possible vote fraud.

In London, Labour gained Lambeth in the local elections (May 2006).

In Manchester, Labour gained Fallowfield, Gorton, Longsight and Whalley Range to keep overall control of the city.

In Bolton, the Liberal Democrats lost four seats making Labour the largest party.

This is odd, as the BBC showed the national share of vote as:


Labour did not do well in the local elections overall, but, they did not do as badly as they should have done.

Was there fraud in places such as Lambeth, Manchester and Bolton?

The following comes from The Sunday Times and describes Lambeth when it was last under Labour control.


The Sunday Times, 30 May 30 1993, reported on financial scandals and rackets in the London borough of Lambeth.

Confidential papers obtained by The Sunday Times revealed massive fraud and mismanagement in the Labour-controlled borough.


1. Charged thousands of times the real cost for repairs and maintenance.

2. Altered or destroyed documents to allow unnecessary, unauthorised or fictitious work to be billed to the authority. Papers relating to millions of pounds of public money are missing.

3. Handed out £2m of work for the environment department's homelessness initiative programme to "a small select list" of contractors, without tenders and on the say-so of one council officer.

The government's District Audit Service issued a "public interest" report accusing the council of unlawfully misdirecting more than £20m.

Paul Claydon, the district auditor, spent two years investigating Lambeth.In one instance, a repair to a wall had a correct price of £184.30, and a special Lambeth price of £8,573.54.

In another, a £33.86 job to replace ceramic tiles was billed at £1,055.62. One item which rightfully should have cost £7.26 was billed for £10,204.74.

In 2005, there were signs of massive vote fraud.

A Channel 4 TV Dispatches programme, 23 May, revealed how Blair's New Labour faked grassroots support during the General Election. An undercover Channel 4 reporter, Jenny Kleeman, showed how:

1. Fake letters were sent to local newspapers to show support for Labour’s achievements.
2. Labour activists posed as 'local people' to greet Blair on the campaign trail.


According to The Times: "A QUARTER of the police forces across Britain are investigating last week’s elections in a purge on fraud and malpractice."

According to the Scotsman there are claims that a Labour Party activist in Birmingham kept a ballot box at his home the night before polls opened. The activist's daughter was a presiding officer for one polling station.

In 1974, Labour's Harold Wilson won 39% of the vote and had a majority of only 3 seats.

In 2005, Labour's Tony Blair won 35% of the vote and had a majority of 67 seats.

According to Robin Cook, former UK Foreign Secretary, a party can normally expect to lose an election if it gets only 36% of the vote.

In 2005, Blair lost lots of not very marginal seats, but managed to hold on to some of the most marginal.

Nationally, Labour saw a 6% drop in their share of the vote.

In the 25 most marginal Labour-Lib Dem seats, the Liberal Democrats saw an average 6.7% increase in their share of the vote.

There are no obvious signs of vote fraud in Leeds North West, which was not considered particularly marginal, but which was captured by the Liberal Democrats:

Leeds North West

Liberal Democrat 16,612 votes. 37.2% of the vote. +10.3% since the last election..

Labour 14,735 votes. 33.0% of the votes. -8.9% since the last election.

There are no obvious signs of vote fraud in:

Solihull - not considered very marginal, but captured by the Liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrat 20,896 votes. 39.9% share of the vote. +13.9% since the last election

Conservative 20,617 votes. 39.4% share of the vote. -6.0%

Labour 8,058 15.4% -10.2%

There are no obvious signs of vote fraud in:

Na h-Eileanan an Iar (The Western Isles where people are generally very honest)

SNP 6,213 votes. 44.9% of the votes. +8.0%

Labour 4,772 votes. 34.5% of the votes. -10.5%

In the constituencies which were most marginal, the swing against Labour was smaller than might be expected. This could be due to a variety of factors, including:

(1) Extra effort by the Labour candidate and his party organisation
(2) tactical voting
(3) possible vote fraud.

In the marginal constituency of Aberdeen South, an investigation has begun into postal voting.

Aberdeen South - marginal

Labour 15,272 votes. 36.7% share of the vote. -1.3%

Liberal Democrat 13,924 votes. 33.5% share of the vote. +4.9%

Aberdeen North - not marginal

Labour 15,557 42.5 -6.8

Liberal Democrat 8,762 23.9 +11.7

Why was the Labour vote down only 1.3% in Aberdeen South, while the Labour vote was down 6.8% in Aberdeen North?

Why was the Liberal vote up only 4.9% in Aberdeen South, while the Liberal vote was up 11.7% in Aberdeen North?


Senior members of the Asian community have been accused of attempting to organise a postal vote racket in Leicester.

Parmjit Singh Gill, the Liberal Democrat MP for Leicester South in the last parliament, believes constituents were put under pressure to register for a postal vote, and then instructed who to vote for.

Leicester South was won by the Liberal Democrats in a previous bi-election.

In the 2005 General Election:
Labour 16,688
Liberal Democrat 12,971


Dumfries and Galloway - very marginal

Labour 20,924 votes. 41.1% share of the vote. +8.7% since the last election.

Conservative 18,002 35.4 +3.3

Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale - thought to be a relatively safe Labour seat

Conservative 16,141 36.2 +11.4

Labour 14,403 32.3 -4.6


According to the BBC, 10 May 2005, Police in Stoke-on-Trent are investigating claims that postal votes may have been tampered with. The returning officer related that 43 papers for Stoke North arrived together and the declaration of identity had been removed from each.

Stoke on Trent North
Labour 16,191 votes -5.4%
Conservative 6,155 votes +1.2%
Liberal Democrat 4,561 votes +2.9%


Which of the following show big swings against Labour?

Which result stands out as very different?

Birmingham Ladywood
Labour 17,262 votes -17.0%
Liberal Democrat 10,461 votes +23.3%

Birmingham Hodge Hill
Labour 13,822 votes -15.3%
Liberal Democrat 8,373 +21.4%

Birmingham Perry Barr
Khalid Mahmood Labour 18,269 +0.5%
Liberal Democrat 10,321 +3.6%


Other examples of very marginal seats where Labour performed better than expected:

Sittingbourne & Sheppey
Labour 17,051 41.8 -4.0%
Conservative 16,972 41.6 +5.1%

Labour 18,621 41.2 -3.3
Conservative 18,367 40.7 +1.6

Labour 22,623 43.1 -2.0
Conservative 22,156 42.2 +1.4

Ochil and South Perthshire
Labour 14,645 31.4 -2.0
SNP 13,957 29.9 -1.7

Dundee East
SNP 14,708 37.2 +1.1
Labour 14,325 36.2 -1.2

Wirral West
Labour 17,543 42.5 -4.7
Conservative 16,446 39.9 +2.7

Calder Valley
Labour 18,426 38.6 -4.1
Conservative 17,059 35.7 -0.5

Colne Valley
Labour 17,536 35.8 -4.6
Conservative 16,035 32.8 +2.3

Dorset South
Labour 20,231 41.6 -0.4
Conservative 18,419 37.9 -3.7

Vale of Glamorgan
Labour 19,481 41.2 -4.2
Conservative 17,673 37.3 +2.3


The Respect website gives examples of possible vote fraud in one part of London:

"118 Brick Lane: There are 12 Bengali names registered there. None of whom has ever lived in the building. Polling cards for these names have been removed.

"108 Brick Lane: is tenanted, I understand by Mr (Abdul) Salique, a well-known New Labour supporter. It is clear from our investigation that the 12 people registered on the roll do not live there, while Mr Salique claims that he and his family are resident. This is palpably untrue. We have statements and video evidence from the people who are there. Mr Salique holds a sheaf of polling cards.

"104 Brick Lane: none of the six names registered lives there and the polling cards for these names are missing.



Election Day Exit Polls showed that Kerry won both the electoral & popular vote with Kerry getting 51% and Bush 48%.

Early on the morning of 11/3 the mass media continued to show Kerry’s national win - and Kerry's win in Ohio & Florida. CNN’s website 11/3 at 12:21AM showed Kerry’s win in Ohio State.

Officially Bush won the election.

Statisticians & mathematicians were alarmed at the 5.5% discrepancy between his exit polls and the vote count, which was outside the "margin of error".

A report released March 31st by a group of university statisticians stated that it was near impossible in statistical terms for the discrepancy to be so large without the election vote count being suspect.

An Ohio Recount was requested. The areas most suspected of vote fraud were never counted.

One primary method for fraud was vote machines on a "default setting" - so despite voting for Kerry or an entire Democratic Ticket, the machine would flip to a Bush Vote. Some voters tried over & over to change this. Some voters reported the screen finally verified a Kerry vote,but when they got to the end page to reconfirm ballot,it showed Bush.

Some Florida local election officials "were seen throwing away the official vote count tapes for election day, replacing them with new tapes with new vote count numbers".

The study, “Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report”, was co-authored by a group of professors and academicians specializing in statistics and mathematics affiliated with University of Notre Dame, University of Pennsylvania, University of Utah, Cornell University, University of Wisconsin, Southern Methodist University, Case Western Reserve University and Temple University. Their study does not support claims made by Edison Media Research and Mitofsky International that exit poll errors were to blame for the unprecedented 5.5% discrepancy between exit polls and official 2004 election results.

According to this analysis by a group of senior statisticians, the new data just released by the exit-pollsters shows that the possibility that the overall vote count was substantially corrupted must be taken seriously. “Now we have statistical evidence that these reports were the tip of a national iceberg. The hypothesis that the discrepancy between the exit polls and election results is due to errors in the official election tally is a coherent theory that must be explored,” said statistician Josh Mitteldorf.

The paper titled "Response to Edison/Mitofsky Election System 2004 Report" notes that the Edison/Mitofsky report offers no evidence to support their conclusion that Kerry voters “participated in the exit polls at a higher rate than Bush voters”. In fact, the data provided in the Edison/Mitofsky report suggests that the opposite may have been true: Bush strongholds had slightly higher response rates than Kerry strongholds.

The statisticians note that precincts with hand-counted paper ballots showed no statistical discrepancy between the exit polls and the official results, but for other voting technologies, the overall discrepancy was far larger than the polls’ margin of error.

In one precinct in Ohio, over 4,258 votes were given to Bush where there were only 638 registered voters.

The touch screen machines produce no paper trail.

There is evidence of problems with the "optical scanners" that were used to tabulate the results in many states. When voters fill out paper ballots these ballots were fed into the scanners to total the results. These scanners were manufactured by Diebold & ESS, and have been shown to be easily hacked.

aangirfan: UK - more odd election results?

Al Jazeera


Anonymous said...

The Glenrothes result was a sore one for the SNP, but fortunately the party has the good sense to accept the voters' verdict. We can do without your preposterous fantasising, thanks all the same.

Seen any UFO's recently?

Anon said...

Anonymous said...

Electoral fraud did take place at Glenrothes. I witnessed it.


Anonymous said...

Site Meter