Leading Article: Caveat elector] The name means nothing

Thursday 16 June 1994 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Liberal Democrats in Devon are understandably dismayed and embittered at having narrowly failed to secure a third seat for their party in the European elections. Beaten by a Conservative who polled 700 more votes, they feel defeat sprang from confusion rather than the popular will. Party workers claim that many of the 10,203 votes polled by Richard Huggett, maverick representative of the previously unheard of Literal Democrats, were cast in error. Yesterday, legal action began, aimed at having the result declared void.

It may well be true that voters were duped by the similarity between the two parties' names. But the case is unproven. Ballot papers could be re-examined to back up claims by individuals that they accidently miscast their votes for the Literal Democrats. Yet such an exercise would be fruitless. The Liberal Democrats have to accept that competitive politics often produces confusions which the parties themselves are obliged to clarify.

This is not the first case of its kind. At the 1992 general election, Labour attributed its loss of Slough to the presence of an unofficial Labour candidate who polled 699 votes. In the 19th century there were several instances of the electorate being offered a choice between two Liberals or two Conservatives.

Both Edward Heath and Roy Jenkins have fought namesakes. Margaret Thatcher was lucky that a returning officer used his discretion to exclude an impostor, but she would have had no grounds for legal action.

Nobody is empowered to exclude another person from using a party title or indeed a personal name during an election. Unless Britain follows other countries and legislates to register parties this will remain the case. The Plant report on electoral reform, commissioned by the Labour Party, has suggested that a register should be compiled.

Yet it seems unreasonable that any group should be allowed to claim sole ownership of a particular title. If the large parties want to retain their identities there are plenty of ways they can highlight any confusion their supporters might encounter. The Liberal Democrats failed to warn effectively against an obvious source of misunderstanding. Harsh though it may be, they, like Labour and the Tories in other instances, will have to accept the unfortunate consequences.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in