Letter sparks Town Hall turmoil

Days before the final votes were in, leaders of the party in power appeared to have peered into the ballot box and used the information to target critical wards.

Yesterday, we revealed how the city's Labour leader had circulated a letter to the party faithful apparently admitting it had been given a sneak preview of the early returns in the all-postal ballot.

Ken Bodfish, the leader of the city council, warned party members the result was hanging on a knife-edge and urged activists to step up the pressure.

But last night there was the sound of frantic back-pedalling from the city's Labour HQ.

Coun Bodfish, who put his name to the rallying letter in which he broadcast the "bad news", said he had not written it.

Instead, the party's election organiser Simon Burgess, also a candidate, admitted penning the offending leaflet in which four "key wards" were identified as being crucial to retain Labour's position as the ruling party.

He said he had got it wrong and apologised.

Coun Bodfish said the "firm evidence" to which he referred in print was, in fact, educated guesswork.

David Panter, the chief executive of the city council and also its returning officer, insisted the integrity of the election had not been compromised.

But, typically, the leaders of the opposition parties quickly jumped on the bandwagon with accusations of foul play and threats of calling in the police.

Because the all-postal ballot process is so new, the subtle shifts in the rules have not been fully tested.

These include allowing election agents to make regular checks on the number of people who have returned their votes in the run-up to the closing date.

This information, obtained perfectly legitimately under the new pilot election guidelines, can then be used to forecast patterns and trends in each ward allowing parties to target the critical seats where they need to make an extra push.

It is a very different story from the one Coun Bodfish/Mr Burgess referred to in their wake-up call leaflet to activists.

That suggested party leaders had been able to assess a sample of votes already cast, which would have been against the law.

Because of this, there are those from within and outside the political sphere who say the whiter-than-white image essential for a free and fair election has now been tarnished.

Keith Taylor, Green Party convenor in Brighton and Hove, led those calls which were also backed by a series of worried members of the public who contacted us yesterday afternoon.

Coun Taylor said: "This represents a gross abuse of the system."

Tory leader Brian Oxley weighed in saying Coun Bodfish's letter had been unwise at the very least.

He said: "Ken Bodfish's letter is irresponsible in the extreme as it is feeding people's concerns about the confidentiality of the voting process."

Lib Dem leader Paul Elgood said: "This must be fully investigated.

"We will be taking legal advice from the national party and will consider making a police complaint. This could plainly have interfered with the electoral system."

David Weltman, 70, and his wife Linda, 56, from Kemp Town, were among those who contacted us.

Mr Weltman said: "We have always voted in local elections because we realise how important it is to have our say. During every election we have walked to our local polling station, except this year when we voted by post.

"We feel very uneasy about this latest development. I do not feel my vote is secure or confidential anymore."

Mr Burgess, who put his hand up to causing all the fuss when his letter was leaked to opposition councillors and The Argus, said last night: "With hindsight I would have written it differently but it was a private letter to Labour members.

"I regret it's being interpreted a different way than intended. The letter was just meant to motivate members.

"We can make predictions that a certain level of turnout is likely to favour certain parties from what has happened in the past. For example, it is well known I think that Labour voters are possibly the hardest to get out. If we see a certain turnout is likely, it indicates to us that we need to get more people out in that ward.

"The whole thing is absolutely scrupulously supervised and there isn't any question of us doing anything dodgy.

"With hindsight I regret it is open to this interpretation. I drafted this letter for Ken, I put his name on it and I want to take responsibility for it."

Mr Panter said his task as returning officer was to reassure people the electoral process was intact and had not been corrupted.

He said he had spoken to Coun Bodfish and asked Mr Burgess for "clarification" but was confident nothing improper had taken place.

He added: "I'm absolutely clear they have not seen any of the ballot papers to do any sort of sampling."

He denied the row had damaged the image of the city's first major postal ballot saying it had merely provided another chance to stress how secure the procedure was.

He said: "There was some inappropriate explanation used in a party leaflet, which, as returning officer, I have no control over. It's unfortunate."

The strict guidelines governing the way elections are run are enshrined in law as a foundation stone of British democracy.

In conventional elections they are laid down by the Representation of the People Act.

Representatives of political parties are allowed to watch as postal votes are opened prior to polling day but are subject to strict confidentiality rules.

Anybody who subsequently passes on information about voting patterns would be committing an offence, according to some senior election administrators.

The same regulations do not apply to this year's all-post ballot.

Mr Panter said there had been no breach of the code as the pilot election was not governed by standard regulations.

He said: "Certainly it was in the provisions within our particular proposal that this information should be shared and that was the bid that was approved."

Alex Folkes, of the Electoral Reform Society in London, whose sister organisation Electoral Reform Services is running the election on behalf of the council, said security was vital.

He said: "People are always worried about the security of any voting procedure and they are right to have these concerns because we do need to make sure that we can rely on our ballots to give the right result at the end of the day."