Twitter

You will recall that Labour Twit[ter Czar] Kerry McCarthy HMP recently admitted publishing an exit poll from a postal vote opening session held by Bristol City Council. This is an offence under the Representation of the People Act 1983, and no doubt the Police will be popping over for a chat at some point soon. As we all know, ignorance of the law is no defence, and regardless of how often the word “gaffe” is used to describe Ms McCarthy’s actions, an appointment with a magistrate looms.

I received a few enquiries after writing about this subject, which can be summarised as:

1. Why are postal votes opened before polling day?
2. Is it legal? and
3. if so, why others, particularly a candidate, are allowed to be present?

The answer to the first question is probably down to resources. (Acting) Returning Officers count postal votes early because there are so many PVs issued, and if the A(RO) conducted the PV count at the end of polling day, they would need more staff available to achieve the traditional speedy British count, rather than the tardy European approach.

In 2009 – based on local election statistics from the Electoral Commission - approximately 14% of voters applied for postal votes, and these constituted 22% of all votes cast. Now the Independent recently did a story suggesting that 30% of the electorate will be postal voters in 2010. I can’t find any official stats, but a quick trawl of Google suggests this is a plausible forecast.

Typical voter turnout over the last few UK general elections has averaged around 66% [i.e. about 1 in three electors choose not to vote], and these figures from a recent FoI request about elections in Manchester suggest the same ratios apply to postal voters.

Because life is short, and statistics are sparse, I’m going to use figures from an Electoral Commission’s report on the 2009 Plymouth Local Elections, specifically Table 8. Postal electors and votes in England 2009 –overall and by type of
authority.

UK Parliamentary constituencies typically contain around 70,000 voters, therefore each constituency A(RO) could currently be dealing with maybe 15,000 postal votes. When opened, the personal identifier [i.e. signature] on each of these votes has to be compared against the original application [note – by law only 20% of PVs have to be validated, but most A(RO)s apparently check them all].

So, postal votes are opened and counted at regular sessions before polling day, and political agents are entitled to attend these sessions just as they are entitled to attend the count of non-postal ballot papers. During a count, votes will be collated in piles for each candidate, and if you ever attend a count you will see lots of people hanging around with clip boards and tally sheets – usually bearded old men in sandals, greasy-haired young men in anoraks or plump women in ill-fitting power suits – looking serious and glaring at each other.

But since most of the Postal Vote counting sessions take place before the end of polling day, those present are required by law to not reveal any information they glean about voting patterns. Kerry.

If you’re particular keen, you can read the Guidance manual for (Acting) Returning Officers at a UK general election,  or the Comprehensive guidance manual for candidates and agents (PDF). The important section of the latter for our purposes is:

2.32 (Acting) Returning Officers will carry out several postal vote opening sessions ahead of polling day and on polling day itself. You [the candidate], your election agent and your postal voting agents may observe the postal vote opening process but must not interfere with it.

So there you have. Returning to the three questions above:

1. Postal Votes are opened before polling day to ensure a speedy electoral result.
2. Yes, it is legal
3. Candidates are entitled, by custom and law, to be present at the counting of ballot papers

And the system works, as long as candidates don’t release their own exit poll on Twitter. Kerry.

I tell you, after a few years writing about politics, you realise that you couldn’t make this stuff up.

Hot on the heels of Cameron, Clegg and Brown, Burlesque performer Dita Von Teese is coming to Bristol. She will be performing at the City Museum and Art Gallery on May 15th 2010.

The California-based Corey Helford Gallery in collaboration with our very own Bristol City Museum and Art Gallery present:

Art From The New World - A Big Brash Exhibition of the New American Art Scene

Join us for an evening of celebration as we unveil the first look at this unprecedented collection of work by some of the finest emerging and noted living U.S. urban and contemporary artists from the New American Art Scene. Many of the artists will be in attendance and the evening includes drinks and canapés, a live DJ, and will be capped off with an exclusive performance by International Burlesque Star, Dita Von Teese.

The opening has been delayed, but - confirmed by a message on her Twitter account – Ms Von Teese will still be performing. Now I don’t know art, but I know what I like, and may I be the first to say “phwoar!” <crack> Ouch, sorry, the wife. Via my underground network of Internet-based troublemakers, I received the following fantastic internal email exchange from the council.

The blue touch paper was lit by the Bristol Fawcett Society, “closing the inequality gap since 1866”:

Please tell me this is wrong...

The museum is a family venue, aside from anything else.

Last year we saw the promotional video for Bristol that involved a female dancer jiggling her naked buttocks at the camera, and now we are to host an international stripteaser?  The press release for the exhibition talks about the male artists who are topping the bill but fails to mention the strip show.  Dita von Teese's website doesn't mention anything about art on the home page, it just offers opportunities to "See! Dita in Corsets!  Stockings!  Lingerie!"

Now that the new licensing laws are in, presumably the museum will need a sexual entertainment venue licence?  Or perhaps there is a technical loophole?

I would like to know whether the leadership of the Council are

• a) unaware of this or
• b) have been consulted and agree what a great idea it is? Is my tax paying for this?

Aside from the fact that the Council, in hosting this event, are encouraging a view of women as sexual objects for consumption, on a personal note I would just like to say how deeply alienated this makes me feel from engagement in the city's leisure and culture  programme.

The wilful use of the phrase “international stripteaser” officially raises the humour level from “jolly funny” to “most ribald and chortlesome” [Can we call it DitaGate? Go on, you know you want to. Not quite as catch as Coconut Gate but it’ll do.]. Quick to reply is Labour Group Leader, and former leader of Bristol City Council, Lady Helen of Holland:

I have only just found out about this and am appalled.

Only last week I was at a Members Training Session about how the City Council can use the new Sexual Entertainment Venue legislation, and we were not given any idea there that the City Council itself was planning to host a "show" of this kind. I can imagine what our reaction would have been if we had been informed.

As well as your ccs, I am copying this to the Council's solicitors who led the training for their comments.

Like you, I would like to know just who in the Council's officer or political leadership knows about this, and what they were thinking of when they approved it.

kind regards, […]

Cllr Helen Holland

So, council to run burlesque show. Council solicitor asked to comment. Humour level now raised to “guffawing loudly”.

Dear Councillor Holland [replies a Senior Council Solicitor]

[…] I have made enquiries and am informed that the event you are referred to is a private event organised and paid for by the Corey Helford Gallery, which is presenting an exhibition at the City Museum from May.

As you are aware the legislation we covered in the training has only recently come into force and even if adopted in an area does not come into effect straight away, so the impact of the new law is currently academic.  For the reasons we discussed in the training a performance of burlesque may or may not be caught by that legislation in any event; each case will turn on its own facts.  You will also recall that the legislation exempts occasional performances, i.e. no more than one performance per month over the previous year.

In response to your specific question about Officer and Member involvement, I am told that Julie Finch took advice from Kate Davenport to ensure that the private view remained private; David Bishop [Head of City Development] is aware of the full programme of exhibitions in the next year; the Chief Executive [Jan Ormondroyd] was briefed as was Councillor Simon Cook [Lib Dem, Executive Member for Culture, Sports and Capital Projects].

Humour level raised to “knee slapping and gasping for air”. No cost to taxpayers, so I’m officially happy. Can this get any funnier? Yes. Yes, it can. The response is relayed to the Bristol Fawcett society, who reply:

Thank you for this response, which does not address a number of issues.

The Council's duty to promote gender equality is not addressed here.  i am a gender equality consultant and I have been unable among all my professional colleagues to find a single expert on gender equality who does not agree that this event acts against the interests of women's equality.  The Council, unlike private bodies, is bound to consider the impact of its decisions on gender equality. 

This is not optional: it is enshrined in legislation for a reason.  That reason is that public bodies were failing to take their obligations regarding gender equality seriously, until legislation was introduced.  If you would like me to, I will refer you to literature which sets out what is or is not burlesque.  Dita Von Teese's act is striptease (the clue is in the name, as well as on her website) and reflects what is known as 'retro-sexist' ideology.  Retro-sexism allows troubling sexual objectification to be claimed as 'cutting-edge' and 'radical' rather than exploitative.  It is not challenging to gender narratives or gender stereotypes and it does not play with notions of social class.

The latter is a definition of 'burlesque'.  I can also refer you to literature that sets out why the presentation of women as performing sexual objects/knowing sexual subjects is problematic in our sexist culture.

2) Privacy.  This event is by invitation only.  That does not exclude the Council from having a role as it owns the building, among other considerations.  What will be next, a private party at the Council House where the Black and White Minstrels are invited to perform?  If that would not be allowed, why would this striptease be allowed?

3) Privacy.  Dita Von Teese has advertised this event on her website.

That is how I found out about it.  You will see if you visit her website that she posts pictures of her performances on her website. She is pleased to have the opportunity to take her clothes off in the splendid historical setting of Bristol Museum for a reason. Assuredly, records of this performance will be circulated.

I am extremely disappointed at what I consider to be the weighing up of sexism (and the breaching of legislation) against considerations of - what - whether it would be embarrassing to inform the gallery that procedures were not properly followed and the council has realised that it is unable to host the performance because of our country's equality legislation?

If the performance was truly to be 'private', in private premises not in premises owned by the people of Bristol, there would not be any complaints.  This is an issue that is controversial, not in an 'edgy','arty' way but in a way that pits the rights of Bristolian women to believe their city stands up for gender equality, against elite interests.

[Bristol Fawcett] are appalled and bitterly disappointed at the lack of gender equality awareness demonstrated thus far.

[…] I have one further point to add, which is that for more than twenty years it has been recognised that the display of sexually objectifying materials (such as posters of women in states of undress, posing sexually, in lingerie or corsets or nipple tassels - see Dita Von Teese's website for some examples) are entirely inappropriate in the workplace because of the fact that they cause a hostile, degrading work environment that affects the dignity of women workers.  This is enshrined in legislation and I am quite sure that workers at the museum would not expect that their jobs require them to be subjected to a live striptease performance in their workplace.

I’ve had my differences with Cllr Simon Cook before now, but may I congratulate him for arranging this contribution to local culture (and for finally arranging something that isn’t a complete money pit). Now let’s get to the heart of the matter: why wasn’t I invited? I’m a new media and social networking pioneer, innit?

The Bristol Fawcett Society does raise a valid issue about Council staff being exposed to such a hostile work environment. So  rather than paying Council staff overtime to participate in the event, and force them to watch Dita Von Teese, perhaps we could arrange some volunteers from the local community?

Form an orderly queue by the comments section if you’re interested.