Quality of candidates – start with “are they human?”

Written By: - Date published: 10:34 am, July 9th, 2024 - 12 comments
Categories: Dirty Politics, elections, electoral commission, electoral systems, Politics, spin, taxpayers union, uk politics, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags: ,

With all of the issues about Green party MPs, who have been having issues recently, I was intrigued to run across the article in the Guardian “Reform UK under pressure to prove all its candidates were real people” after the recent election in the UK.

Reform UK has come under pressure to provide evidence its candidates at the general election were all real people after doubts were raised about a series of hopefuls who stood without providing any photos, biographies or contact details.

Reform insists every one of its 609 candidates on 4 July were real, while accepting that some were in effect “paper candidates” who did no campaigning, and were there simply to help increase the party’s vote share.

However, after seeing details about the apparently complete lack of information about some candidates, who the Guardian is not naming, the Liberal Democrats called on Reform to provide details about them.

A Liberal Democrat source said: “This doesn’t sound right and Reform should come clean with evidence. We need Reform to show who they are. People need to have faith in the democratic process.”

Quite why Reform UK was chasing “vote share” in a political election that has no party proportional system is a question in itself. However targeting that system got them about 14% of the total vote and the same amount of MPs as the Greens, who largely targeted seats that they could win and who got about 7%. But expecting the people who brought you the economic disaster that is Brexit probably just means that you are expecting far too much rational thinking from them.

One of the candidates pictured below for instance was questioned about being a AI generated image. You can see why ..

Turned out that he wasn’t. It was a real person with a touched up photo:-

The suspicions about Mark Matlock, who won 1,758 votes in Clapham and Brixton Hill in south London, were compounded when he did not show for the election count, with sceptics also pointing to an apparent lack of any photographs of him campaigning.

However, Matlock insisted that he did exist, and there was a reason for the curious-looking election picture: “The image is me. Stupidly I had to get it altered to change my tie and suit as I couldn’t get to a photographer on time.” He showed the Guardian a copy of the original image, which was changed to make his tie a Reform light blue.

Matlock, who lives in the Cotswolds, said he did undertake a leaflet drop, adding that he understood the rush to get candidates in place: “The election caught us all on the hop and Rishi Sunak knew that. But we still managed to fill most of the seats with candidates, even if not all of them lived there, and it all contributed to our vote share.”

The Clapham and Brixton Hill candidate said he missed the election count because he had pneumonia.

Still leaves me deeply suspicious. Some very convenient excuses.

Make me wonder how the Guardian contacted Matlock. In person? Because it is just as easy to fake a ‘real’ photo and remove AI traces and metadata. Plus the ‘vote share’ again ! Sounds more like a AI pumping the PR line. Or the “Taxpayers Union” or “Free Speech Union” here mindlessly pushing their major donor policies with their toy puppets.

The UK apparently requires a minimal effort to confirm candidates are real.

Under electoral rules, the only details that need to be given about the candidate is their full name and the constituency where they live. They must all have an agent, and be nominated by 10 local voters.

Consequently the Guardian has had issues tracking down some of the mysterious Reform UK candidates.

It is even less tough here – Electoral Commission: “How to become a candidate at a general election“

You have to be nominated by two voters enrolled in the electorate you want to contest. You cannot nominate yourself. Your nominators can only nominate one candidate at the election.

A $300 deposit must be paid with an individual nomination.

However the Electoral Commission obviously holds more details.

We will publish candidate and party names (or independent) on vote.nz following the close of nominations. We do not publish any other candidate information.

We may release candidate telephone and email details after the close of nominations on request from media or anyone else for other candidate related purposes, unless a candidate has asked for these details to be withheld.

It does sound all remote and relatively easy to fake. Perhaps they should also state if they have vetted the person to ensure that they have verified the requirements of being an actual human. Because if you don’t then you can guarantee that some wealthy offshore donor will get their local puppets to play a ‘prank’ and, as they have so many times before, replicate a offshore electoral PR fraud here.

12 comments on “Quality of candidates – start with “are they human?” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    9 July 2024 at 11:07 am

    Predictably "‘Disproportionate’ UK election results boost calls to ditch first past the post" backed by Reform UK.

    Now I have no problem with getting a more proportionate system. However I really despise the ethics of a party that deliberately puts up a straw man argument like Reform did.

    I recognise the characteristic arsehole tactical approach of mischief makers looking for a diversion from actual policy. So characteristic of the parasitic political classes that the right nurtures almost exclusively in the halls of power. People like Chris Bishop, Nicola Willis and their compatriots in false front entities like TU and FSU.

    Backed by Topham Guerin. (see my comment from the past on Ben Guerin) It wouldn't surprise me if they were helping Reform UK. That campaign was redolent of their stench.

    Typically none of whom have ever had to work for a living. Instead they depend upon connections and patronage that would be familiar to anyone who observes 18th century history.

    They all batten on politics and crony capitalism.

    Chris Luxon seems to me to be a patronage bunny, currently out of his depth and starting to sink.

  2. Visubversa 2
    9 July 2024 at 11:29 am

    A serial candidate in the Eden/Albert ward of Auckland City Council was prosecuted some years ago for forging the signatures of his nominators.

    • lprent 2.1
      9 July 2024 at 12:17 pm

      Can we blame someone who was so alone that they couldn't even find two people to vouch for them? Or whatever the local government electoral act requires 🙂 😈

      Sure we can…

      I just got kiwisaver, for which I had to go to a JP to have a look at my identification and at me to certify that I was a live human and I looked like my identity papers. But being a candidate requires less?

      I had to set up several investment accounts and term deposits to take the contents of the kiwisaver. Those required that I front up with identity to make sure that I wasn't money-laundering. They read my drivers license or passport and matched with with the live video from my phone. Then clearly matched it with data attached to both. The alternative was to go to the JP again.

      Surely that should be a minimum standard required for someone who could wind up with the laws governing the taxes I pay?

      To get superannuation, the same. For my brief time on job seekers benefit after a redundancy, the same.

      Every job I have ever gone for in decades has required that they sight my identification and frequently that they can check my records for a criminal past.

      Coming to think of it, for everything important we are mandated to prove that we are human and that we are who we said we are. Why not for seeking public office?

      Must be about time to update the requirements of the various electoral acts.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1
        9 July 2024 at 4:09 pm

        I understood the level of identification required to withdraw kiwisaver funds is because of the yearly government contribution up to $520 pa. Since its 17 years since the scheme began in Jul 2007 thats up to $8800 over that time . With earnings that could $15-20k ?

        • lprent 2.1.1.1
          9 July 2024 at 4:37 pm

          Sure, but it really makes no difference these days. That is because of the money laundering requirements on more recent acts.

          I never had to provide any authentication when I set up kiwisaver because it was coming from my salary and in effect validated by the IRD who actually did the deposits in the investment fund. The IRD are notable as an authentication method because of the level of record access that they have.

          But the amount of authentication required to put money back into the same investment company as my kiwisave for a mutual investment fund only lacked the JP because it used electronic means. The actual level of authentication required for both included a scan of the drivers license or passport, matched with a record lookup and with a live scan of my face using the phone. Could be fooled. But personally if I was trying to scam it, then I’d take my chances with the JP.

          With earnings that could $15-20k ?

          14 years for mine as I started when I was 50. The government contribution was a very minor portion. I spent 4 years at 4%, 7.5 years at 8% of earnings, 2.5 years at 10%. An upcoming 65yo was a marvellous incentive.

          The governments $1k and $0.5k was a teeny portion of what I and my employer contributed in each year.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 2.1.1.1.1
            10 July 2024 at 10:52 am

            Its really is just the growth of the 'identity documentation' these days

            I spoke to my lawyer about discharge of a mortgage off the title that was paid off long ago I used them before so they knew who I was.

            They sent me this link for photo identification with this technically interesting way of creating one from my own cell phone.

            Unlike the passport system it checks the image is suitable while you do it …with a oval for the face position. The software wanted your passport as part of the same image- you are holding it in your hand.

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    9 July 2024 at 1:28 pm

    A good appraisal and an interesting issue. That image of the youngster reminds me of the old Zappa song about plastic people. If he'd been running in the USA he probably would have captured three times as many voters.

    Funny tho. Reportage seems to avoid the issue of whether Reform broke the rules or not. The LDP trying to publicly shame them seems disingenuous: if the rules weren't broken, then Reform are merely gaming the system. Politics as usual. It's not as if voters genuinely believe politicians are real people…

    • lprent 3.1
      9 July 2024 at 1:47 pm

      Reportage seems to avoid the issue of whether Reform broke the rules or not. The LDP trying to publicly shame them seems disingenuous: if the rules weren’t broken, then Reform are merely gaming the system. Politics as usual.

      If the candidates were in fact not real people or their details that were required to be given to the electoral authority were incorrect or if their 10+ supporting members of the electorate details were invalid – then it is a electoral crime.

      Same as it would be here and the candidate (and possibly the party depending on who provided the details) could be prosecuted for it. Electoral offences are usually pretty severe on punishments – at least they were when the electoral acts were passed.

      However false accusations of criminal offences also tend to carry punishments. So only suspicions can typically be raised without definitive proof. And it is usually hard to prove a absence of negative without some working details to check.

      Only the electoral bodies (like NZ) have the required details like contact numbers or addresses to identify the candidates. The electoral bodies (like our one) also have legitimate privacy issues with releasing those – which is why I pointed out that on the quote from our electoral commission.

      So the LibDems, Greens and the media will be having a look around to see if they can identify someone who is quite suspicious. They will then report that to the electoral authorities who will then be required to investigate for anything obvious. Typically if they don’t have a good answer, it then gets passed to the police for investigation.

      But you’d have to say that not having any idea who some of the candidates are in a community tends towards deeply suspicious. Offhand, outside of some of the obvious attention seekers and students after a grubstake in some of the local body elections, I can’t think of an obvious equivalents here. Even the McGilliculdy Serious candidates used to try to have as high a profile as possible – even in snap elections.

      • Dennis Frank 3.1.1
        9 July 2024 at 5:08 pm

        Okay, the Brits do have an equivalent of our Electoral Commission. It may seem sensible to assume they validate candidates as part of their job but I'd rather see a UK media report actually say so. I've seen too many instances of things falling through system gaps in my life. Like you, I had a sci-fi education long ago and the scenario of fake candidates will appeal to the downstream generations who absorbed the snowballing of that. Sensible system design would cross-check the candidate's name with other govt depts for validation – can we assume their EC already does so?

        Someone ought to get an official govt response to that question. In the meantime we wait to see if the concerns raised pass a critical threshold of necessitating response.

      • Mike the Lefty 3.1.2
        9 July 2024 at 6:50 pm

        I would assume that if any candidate, including Reform UK, hadn't supplied the necessary documentation and accreditation on application then their candidature wouldn't have been accepted by the electoral authority and thus they wouldn't have appeared on the ballot paper.

        Whether Reform UK candidates are human is open to interpretation.

  4. adam 4
    9 July 2024 at 1:45 pm

    Bloody nora lprent, that was uncomfortable reading.

    This is insidious.

    The anti-democratic forces are just vile, they infect ever thing they touch with a new level of immorality.

    • lprent 4.1
      9 July 2024 at 2:35 pm

      …that was uncomfortable reading.

      I can but try.. But I was educated in part by science fiction for instance like the stories in discussion here.

      There are a lot of similar stories out there with a similar political themes.

      Plus whenever you look at laws, it pays to remember that if there is a way to leverage them for effect, then eventually someone will do it.

      But always try Jon Scalzi – like "The President's brain is missing"

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.