Independent election ‘scam’ is probed

NEXT month’s elections for West Somerset District Council could be declared invalid and ‘Independent’ candidates and their supporters investigated for ‘electoral fraud’, The Crier can reveal.
It follows the backing of ‘Independent’ candidates by the Liberal Democrat-sponsored residents’ organisation Direct.
The chairman of Direct, Arthur Philips, has published posters and other literature urging local residents to vote for the ‘Independent’ candidates.
But Mr Philips is not an ‘election agent’ for any of the candidates and spending money on such campaigns could therefore be in breach of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which states only the candidate, election agent, and those authorised in writing by the election agent can incur election expenses, while anybody who ‘incurs, or aids, abets, counsels, or procures any other person to incur any expenses in contravention of this section ... shall be guilty of a corrupt practice ...’.
The issue has already been raised with the Electoral Commission and with the West Somerset Returning Officer Tim Howes.
The correspondence, which The Crier has seen, expresses concern that “there is an ‘electoral deceit’ being perpetrated on local voters by those Independents who are a part of this, as they are not Independent but are actually part of a collective political movement and are hiding this fact from the electorate.”
The move follows recent revelations by The Crier that ‘Independent’ candidates could be seen to be a party in themselves as they were being coached and guided centrally and were inherently linked with the Liberal Democrat movement.
This view was reinforced when the candidates were announced and it was seen that the Liberal Democrats were apparently not fielding any candidates except their two most well-known characters in Carhampton and Watchet.
The ‘Independents’ had “by coincidence” all declared themselves in such a way that none were fighting each other for seats.
In single seat wards, there was only one ‘Independent’, in two seat wards there were two ‘Independents’, and so on.
It has prompted claims by opponents that an electoral ‘scam’ was being tried out on voters by any ‘Independent’ involved in the collective decision-making and campaign.