It must be fascinating watching the votes being unloaded out of the ballot boxes and seeing them pile up for each candidate.
There ought to be a few tickets available for members of the public to observe the process.
The bit I'm confused about it is how they count a 3 member ward - if you have voted Lab, Tory, Lib which pile do they put it in / make sure that it's not counted multiple times?
I once went to a count where they made piles of ballots where people had voted for all 3 of the candidates from a party and then a pile of split ballots and counted them separately.
Henry has been a UKIP councillor in Newry & Mourne District for a fair while. Former defector from, I think, the Ulster Unionists, Henry IS UKIP in Northern Ireland.
The curiosity factor in the Euros and local council elections will be the performance of NI21, the stupidly named unionist but without sashes experiment of Basil McCrea and John McCallister. They do fit a particular space alright but such offshoots have tended to be transient, popularity of its leading lights aside.
In the local councils another watch will be it'll be what happens to Alliance particularly in the safe Prod-dom centric areas where their strongest base is such as East Belfast and the East Antrim Corridor. Tell you this much, if the DUP put a strong player in East Belfast for 2015 I'll be surprised Naomi Long will hang on as MP. Not convinced the working class Prods in the housing estates who gave her the votes in order to give Peter Robinson a kick in the nads in 2010 will be so inclined again.
Before the watershed, I was getting adverts for Barbie's dreamhouse (from amazon). Now I am getting rather, *ahem*, striking adverts for a swimwear range from Simona Barbieri...
East Midlands: Kettering Eastern: Chelmsford London: Lewisham North East: Sunderland North West: Manchester South East: Southampton South West: Poole West Midlands: Birmingham Yorkshire and Humber: Leeds Scotland: Falkirk Wales: Pembrokeshire
In my experience, the main complaints about Labour are that they don't know what the party stands for either positively or negatively, that they think EdM is a bit of a joke and out of his depth,
But that is precisely because the party doesn't have economic credibility, and that in turn stems ultimately from Gordon Brown's 'Labour investment versus Tory cuts' nonsense (which, to his credit, Peter Mandelson tried with limited success to squash). Having been dragged kicking and screaming into acknowledging the obvious - that you can't go on borrowing one pound for every three raised in taxation - they were then left with literally nothing to say, since if they did say anything they found themselves up against the dilemma that they agreed with spending cuts but opposed them.
I agree that Labour's complete lack of definition is indirectly caused by them saying they accepted Tory spending plans, and I also agree it rings totally hollow when a Labour spokesperson goes on Newsnight and criticises the Tories for some spending cut but then when asked says they wouldn't reverse that cut if they got into government and repeat their mantra of "cuts will have to be made regardless".
Which is why in my view it's overwhelmingly in Labour's (electoral) interests to argue that the deficit doesn't need to be reduced further, to only pledge to keep public spending broadly at the level it is now rather than slashing it even further. Atleast that will get it some much-needed definition, even if it comes at the cost of sneers from the small (imo, as I've said, very small) section of the public who actually care about the public finances.
Because the economic plans are aimed at the markets, not voters. Even the most popular government needs their backing if they want to borrow money
Imo, this gets to the crux of the problem with politics/"democracy" at the moment. That it doesn't matter what the public think or how they vote, their verdict can always be overridden by "the markets" or by a cosy elite of big businesses and the super-rich. I fail to see how this is any different to the unions holding the country to ransom and effectively having the power to torpedo any democratically-elected government's plans in the 70s, even if those plans had got a mandate from the public (and even I, as a leftie and certified Thatcher-hater, think the union leaders needed bringing down a peg or two).
Edit: why do they count the next day? Is it simply a cost issue? If so, do we have any idea how much is saved?
Oh, and first.
And all the candidates are on edge and knackered on the election day itself. So you have a load of tired, fed up people having to scrutinise and make decisions - not good and the atmosphere is rough.
Coming in the next day after a good night's sleep and just that bit of distance, the atmosphere is much better, in my experience
Interesting - makes some degree of sense. Also - is it worth going to the count as a first time candidate? Means taking a day off work, but potentially interesting?
Absolutely. The count is the FA Cup Final of politics. winner takes all, nothing for the loser, all happens in front of you, possibly a fight breaking out between the opposing managers etc. You also have everyone together in a room for the day with very little they can do to influence things if the counting teams are competent, so it's your best chance to get known as a first time candidate.
Good to see your Maxwell type accounting again - which to his credit George Osborne does not indulge in.
It reminds me to reveal my great idea which would allow a government of the Eds to simultaneously end the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending.
And what do the Eds have to do to achieve this miracle ?
No more than extend your Maxwell type treatment of the Royal Mail pension fund assets to the pension fund assets of every company's defined benefit pension scheme.
That would allow the Eds to get their hands on hundreds of billions of extra money with all corresponding liabilities being conveniently off balance sheet.
I would further suggest that the Eds justify this as:
1) A way of safeguarding future pension payments via a government guarantee 2) Ensuring that pension fund assets are 'more effectively invested' 3) Allowing businesses to invest more by removing the need to disclose pension liabilities
Now I dare say that some people might not be totally overjoyed by the government 'safeguarding' their pension fund assets and 'more effectively investing' them.
But such people are unlikely to be Labour voters so there's little for the Eds to lose and so, so much for them to gain.
I must say that I'm relieved to discover that government borrowing last year was a few million less than what George Osborne predicted it would be a few weeks ago.
Bit of a pity though that it was also £48 billion quid more than he predicted it would be in his first budget.
To put the £108bn borrowing of 2013/14 into context, in the eleven years Margaret Thatcher was prime minister total government borrowing was approximately £60bn.
Have you spent the day hitting balls out of bounds at the Normanby Hall Golf Club, ar?
You seem very dyspeptic.
Let's look at those figures again.
This is what St. George said in his 2010 budget:
"As a result of the measures I will announce today, public sector net borrowing will be: £149 billion this year, falling to £116 billion next year, then £89 billion in 2012-13, and then £60 billion in 2013-14. By 2014-15 borrowing reaches £37 billion, exactly half the amount forecast in the March Budget."
Let's look at that 2010 forecast for 'PSNB ex' and compare it to actual outcomes as published in the latest Public Finances Bulletin from the ONS:
Imo, this gets to the crux of the problem with politics/"democracy" at the moment. That it doesn't matter what the public think or how they vote, their verdict can always be overridden by "the markets" or by a cosy elite of big businesses and the super-rich. I fail to see how this is any different to the unions holding the country to ransom and effectively having the power to torpedo any democratically-elected government's plans in the 70s, even if those plans had got a mandate from the public (and even I, as a leftie and certified Thatcher-hater, think the union leaders needed bringing down a peg or two).
Surely it boils down to the fact that money has to come from somewhere?
3 options - tax, borrow or print it.
If you don't care about the deficit you are basically saying "print it".
I think the problem with your argument is that you are suggesting that you win an election by bribing people with newly printed money.
I don't think it matters whether you are a Capitalist, Socialist, Left-wing, Right-wing or whatever you are - no responsible person could think that simply bribing people with newly printed money is a sensible or sustainable way of running a country.
Good to see your Maxwell type accounting again - which to his credit George Osborne does not indulge in.
It reminds me to reveal my great idea which would allow a government of the Eds to simultaneously end the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending.
And what do the Eds have to do to achieve this miracle ?
No more than extend your Maxwell type treatment of the Royal Mail pension fund assets to the pension fund assets of every company's defined benefit pension scheme.
That would allow the Eds to get their hands on hundreds of billions of extra money with all corresponding liabilities being conveniently off balance sheet.
I would further suggest that the Eds justify this as:
1) A way of safeguarding future pension payments via a government guarantee 2) Ensuring that pension fund assets are 'more effectively invested' 3) Allowing businesses to invest more by removing the need to disclose pension liabilities
Now I dare say that some people might not be totally overjoyed by the government 'safeguarding' their pension fund assets and 'more effectively investing' them.
But such people are unlikely to be Labour voters so there's little for the Eds to lose and so, so much for them to gain.
It must be fascinating watching the votes being unloaded out of the ballot boxes and seeing them pile up for each candidate.
There ought to be a few tickets available for members of the public to observe the process.
Andy, having done it several times for various elections let me assure you it loses its fascination.
There's an amusing scramble and elbow jostling amongst the partisans to get good position and desperately scribble notes on how the votes from each box break down.
Then some whispered visual reckoning on the size of the piles to reckon the result.
I remember in the '08 local elections I ended up in pontypool at a recount at about 4am (having started leafleting at 4am the morning before). Watching someone count votes it was all I could do to stay awake.
I suppose it's a lot more exciting when you're watching votes being counted for a crucial marginal seat at a general election, with the future of the country possibly hanging in the balance.
As I'm guest editing the site when the results come out, I'm really annoyed the Euro results are coming out on the Sunday night, when I'll be at a concert watching the Nine Inch Nails.
Can't they move the Euro results to assist me, please.
I presume this is an example of your humour? Sans emoticon, of course.
As most of Europe will actually be voting on Sunday, it isn't exactly practical to release the results before then, is it?
is it worth going to the count as a first time candidate? Means taking a day off work, but potentially interesting?
Sure - it's not exactly high-octane (too much waiting around) but a nice way to round off the process. It would be a let-down merely to have someone ring you up to say you got 157 votes. Who are you standing for and where? Might you win?
Thanks - standing for the Pirate Party in a solid Labour ward in Lambeth so you never know, but not expecting to win...
Sounds like fun!. It's nice standing when you don't expect to win - you can just enjoy the ride. When I stood in Chelsea in 1983, Nick Scott (the Tory MP) and I had such amicable relations that we went on exchanging Xmas cards for years.
As others have said, the pleasures of the count may wear off a bit when you've done it lots of times, but of what human activity can one not say that?
is it worth going to the count as a first time candidate? Means taking a day off work, but potentially interesting?
Sure - it's not exactly high-octane (too much waiting around) but a nice way to round off the process. It would be a let-down merely to have someone ring you up to say you got 157 votes. Who are you standing for and where? Might you win?
Thanks - standing for the Pirate Party in a solid Labour ward in Lambeth so you never know, but not expecting to win...
Sounds like fun!. It's nice standing when you don't expect to win - you can just enjoy the ride. When I stood in Chelsea in 1983, Nick Scott (the Tory MP) and I had such amicable relations that we went on exchanging Xmas cards for years.
As others have said, the pleasures of the count may wear off a bit when you've done it lots of times, but of what human activity can one not say that?
How did you get on with the Liberal/Alliance candidate? Looking it up, I see it was Jonathan Fryer, "writer, broadcaster, and Third World development consultant, b. 5th June 1950" - (Times Guide).
It must be fascinating watching the votes being unloaded out of the ballot boxes and seeing them pile up for each candidate.
There ought to be a few tickets available for members of the public to observe the process.
The bit I'm confused about it is how they count a 3 member ward - if you have voted Lab, Tory, Lib which pile do they put it in / make sure that it's not counted multiple times?
I'm guessing they put the split tickets to one side, and count the block votes (the vast majority) first.
Good to see your Maxwell type accounting again - which to his credit George Osborne does not indulge in.
It reminds me to reveal my great idea which would allow a government of the Eds to simultaneously end the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending.
And what do the Eds have to do to achieve this miracle ?
No more than extend your Maxwell type treatment of the Royal Mail pension fund assets to the pension fund assets of every company's defined benefit pension scheme.
That would allow the Eds to get their hands on hundreds of billions of extra money with all corresponding liabilities being conveniently off balance sheet.
I would further suggest that the Eds justify this as:
1) A way of safeguarding future pension payments via a government guarantee 2) Ensuring that pension fund assets are 'more effectively invested' 3) Allowing businesses to invest more by removing the need to disclose pension liabilities
Now I dare say that some people might not be totally overjoyed by the government 'safeguarding' their pension fund assets and 'more effectively investing' them.
But such people are unlikely to be Labour voters so there's little for the Eds to lose and so, so much for them to gain.
ar
Already done.
In Hungary.
I thought it had been and that makes it all the more likely to happen here.
I assume you find nothing objectionable with the idea.
Good to see your Maxwell type accounting again - which to his credit George Osborne does not indulge in.
It reminds me to reveal my great idea which would allow a government of the Eds to simultaneously end the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending.
And what do the Eds have to do to achieve this miracle ?
No more than extend your Maxwell type treatment of the Royal Mail pension fund assets to the pension fund assets of every company's defined benefit pension scheme.
That would allow the Eds to get their hands on hundreds of billions of extra money with all corresponding liabilities being conveniently off balance sheet.
I would further suggest that the Eds justify this as:
1) A way of safeguarding future pension payments via a government guarantee 2) Ensuring that pension fund assets are 'more effectively invested' 3) Allowing businesses to invest more by removing the need to disclose pension liabilities
Now I dare say that some people might not be totally overjoyed by the government 'safeguarding' their pension fund assets and 'more effectively investing' them.
But such people are unlikely to be Labour voters so there's little for the Eds to lose and so, so much for them to gain.
ar
Already done.
In Hungary.
I thought it had been and that makes it all the more likely to happen here.
I assume you find nothing objectionable with the idea.
ar
I find it quite as appealing an idea as Danny DeLaRue''s 'Print and be Damned' proposals.
It must be fascinating watching the votes being unloaded out of the ballot boxes and seeing them pile up for each candidate.
There ought to be a few tickets available for members of the public to observe the process.
Andy, having done it several times for various elections let me assure you it loses its fascination.
There's an amusing scramble and elbow jostling amongst the partisans to get good position and desperately scribble notes on how the votes from each box break down.
Then some whispered visual reckoning on the size of the piles to reckon the result.
I remember in the '08 local elections I ended up in pontypool at a recount at about 4am (having started leafleting at 4am the morning before). Watching someone count votes it was all I could do to stay awake.
I suppose it's a lot more exciting when you're watching votes being counted for a crucial marginal seat at a general election, with the future of the country possibly hanging in the balance.
That, and I think it's a lot better when you aren't exhausted. And the personal element
There is an excitement to it but I remember it as being very draining, and you're also trying to get a feel for what's happening elsewhere, and because you know the people involved (who may be unemployed tomorrow) it has an emotional edge to it.
An election night party where you just watch the results roll in, have a few drinks and discuss them with people is much more fun.
How did you get on with the Liberal/Alliance candidate? Looking it up, I see it was Jonathan Fryer, "writer, broadcaster, and Third World development consultant, b. 5th June 1950" - (Times Guide).
I can't remember, I'm afraid - I think we were civil enough to each other but not to Xmas card level. My mum, who was a complex character (Russian born but very English, a Tory voter of the Avery type, disliked Maggie as "too political", joined Labour to support me), was the Labour teller most of the day at Chelsea Town Hall, and apparently hit it off famously with the Tory teller, to the angry scowls of the LibDem, who felt - quite correctly - that neither of them were taking it very seriously.
I have a vivid recollection of wanting to sink into the floor when she turned up to her first local branch meeting, suavely swanning into a grotty room above a pub in her ocelot jacket, and declining to sit at the table because it would make the number an unlucky 13. Undeterred, the branch asked if she'd like to be Membership Secretary, a post they'd been trying to fill for months (she accepted cheerfully, as she did most things in life).
How did you get on with the Liberal/Alliance candidate? Looking it up, I see it was Jonathan Fryer, "writer, broadcaster, and Third World development consultant, b. 5th June 1950" - (Times Guide).
Actually I see he's still in politics and he's got quite a chunky Wikipedia entry:
Final post - report in the Guardian on slow broadband speeds:
"Two UK streets found slowest for broadband in a uSwitch test Only 15% of UK residents have access to broadband speed of 30Mbps or higher, earning the 'superfast' tag"
As a Liberal agent many years ago I recall walking round the counting tables "sampling" the results then walking up to the Tory candidate and congratulating him. Apparently I was the first to do so, and he was very appreciative. However, I usually got on much better with Labour opponents, although that night they were having a very bad time.
The bit I'm confused about it is how they count a 3 member ward - if you have voted Lab, Tory, Lib which pile do they put it in / make sure that it's not counted multiple times?
I'm guessing they put the split tickets to one side, and count the block votes (the vast majority) first.
There are various methods, but in Croydon it usually goes like this:
(a) the ballot papers are sorted into Con / Lab / LD / Green / Mixed. (b) those with 3 votes for 3 candidates all of the same party are counted as one vote for each of the 3 candidates. (c) the counting staff then work in pairs to allocate the votes from the "mixed" pile. (i) person A looks at the paper and says "Bloggs, Jones, Smith" (ii) person B ticks off one vote each for Bloggs, Jones and Smith if the paper has a vote for Smith only, person B ticks off 1 for Smith and 2 for "unused". (d) the individual votes for each candidate are then added to the ones they got from the block-vote papers.
In my experience of standing in five main elections in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010, the proportion of ballot papers with block votes varied from about 85% to 62%. Obviously it varies a lot from place to place, and it would be fewer if there are lots of parties with only 1 or 2 candidates per ward.
At each election there's usually at least one case of serious mistakes being made with multi-member elections.
The BNP erroneously had a candidate elected about five years ago in Birmingham, and in 2010 there was a mistake in Walthamstow which wasn't noticed at the time:
It was the Kingstanding ward in Birmingham in 2006 which had 12,200 votes from a turnout of 4,900 ballot papers in a 2-vacancy election. The votes from ballot papers where the voter had only voted for one candidate were erroneously counted as 2 each. There was only 1 BNP candidate standing, so she obviously got very many votes for her only an no other party.
In Purley ward in Croydon in 2010 a similar error happened, when the total was given as 26,000 votes from 7,200 ballot papers (3 vacancies). this was despite the fact that I had written to the R.O. in January 2010 to point out the danger, and to suggest that a double-check be made by calculating the number of votes per ballot paper.
The bit I'm confused about it is how they count a 3 member ward - if you have voted Lab, Tory, Lib which pile do they put it in / make sure that it's not counted multiple times?
I'm guessing they put the split tickets to one side, and count the block votes (the vast majority) first.
There are various methods, but in Croydon it usually goes like this:
(a) the ballot papers are sorted into Con / Lab / LD / Green / Mixed. (b) those with 3 votes for 3 candidates all of the same party are counted as one vote for each of the 3 candidates. (c) the counting staff then work in pairs to allocate the votes from the "mixed" pile. (i) person A looks at the paper and says "Bloggs, Jones, Smith" (ii) person B ticks off one vote each for Bloggs, Jones and Smith if the paper has a vote for Smith only, person B ticks off 1 for Smith and 2 for "unused". (d) the individual votes for each candidate are then added to the ones they got from the block-vote papers.
It must be fascinating watching the votes being unloaded out of the ballot boxes and seeing them pile up for each candidate.
There ought to be a few tickets available for members of the public to observe the process.
No way. Election counts are crowded enough as it is. We don't want them being further cluttered up by morons and gawping booliaks.
It is fascinating Avery, but sorry, but I agree with John L., unless it could be assured that the public could be kept well away. Sort of Strangers Gallery.
On his other post, I've attended quite a few counts and iit says very little for the quality of some Returning Officers, and indeed Party Agents, that howlers of that sort can be made. I'm b*&%$y sure I'd have spotted them while walking round. Incidentally, in my area we had counting agents; Party members who sat on each table to check on the work of the counters. Of course, it's easy to wise when you're not there!
Comments
The curiosity factor in the Euros and local council elections will be the performance of NI21, the stupidly named unionist but without sashes experiment of Basil McCrea and John McCallister. They do fit a particular space alright but such offshoots have tended to be transient, popularity of its leading lights aside.
In the local councils another watch will be it'll be what happens to Alliance particularly in the safe Prod-dom centric areas where their strongest base is such as East Belfast and the East Antrim Corridor. Tell you this much, if the DUP put a strong player in East Belfast for 2015 I'll be surprised Naomi Long will hang on as MP. Not convinced the working class Prods in the housing estates who gave her the votes in order to give Peter Robinson a kick in the nads in 2010 will be so inclined again.
Before the watershed, I was getting adverts for Barbie's dreamhouse (from amazon). Now I am getting rather, *ahem*, striking adverts for a swimwear range from Simona Barbieri...
East Midlands: Kettering
Eastern: Chelmsford
London: Lewisham
North East: Sunderland
North West: Manchester
South East: Southampton
South West: Poole
West Midlands: Birmingham
Yorkshire and Humber: Leeds
Scotland: Falkirk
Wales: Pembrokeshire
Which is why in my view it's overwhelmingly in Labour's (electoral) interests to argue that the deficit doesn't need to be reduced further, to only pledge to keep public spending broadly at the level it is now rather than slashing it even further. Atleast that will get it some much-needed definition, even if it comes at the cost of sneers from the small (imo, as I've said, very small) section of the public who actually care about the public finances.
Imo, this gets to the crux of the problem with politics/"democracy" at the moment. That it doesn't matter what the public think or how they vote, their verdict can always be overridden by "the markets" or by a cosy elite of big businesses and the super-rich. I fail to see how this is any different to the unions holding the country to ransom and effectively having the power to torpedo any democratically-elected government's plans in the 70s, even if those plans had got a mandate from the public (and even I, as a leftie and certified Thatcher-hater, think the union leaders needed bringing down a peg or two).
Good to see your Maxwell type accounting again - which to his credit George Osborne does not indulge in.
It reminds me to reveal my great idea which would allow a government of the Eds to simultaneously end the deficit, cut taxes and increase spending.
And what do the Eds have to do to achieve this miracle ?
No more than extend your Maxwell type treatment of the Royal Mail pension fund assets to the pension fund assets of every company's defined benefit pension scheme.
That would allow the Eds to get their hands on hundreds of billions of extra money with all corresponding liabilities being conveniently off balance sheet.
I would further suggest that the Eds justify this as:
1) A way of safeguarding future pension payments via a government guarantee
2) Ensuring that pension fund assets are 'more effectively invested'
3) Allowing businesses to invest more by removing the need to disclose pension liabilities
Now I dare say that some people might not be totally overjoyed by the government 'safeguarding' their pension fund assets and 'more effectively investing' them.
But such people are unlikely to be Labour voters so there's little for the Eds to lose and so, so much for them to gain.
2013/14 - difference between 60 and 96 is 36, not 46.
3 options - tax, borrow or print it.
If you don't care about the deficit you are basically saying "print it".
I think the problem with your argument is that you are suggesting that you win an election by bribing people with newly printed money.
I don't think it matters whether you are a Capitalist, Socialist, Left-wing, Right-wing or whatever you are - no responsible person could think that simply bribing people with newly printed money is a sensible or sustainable way of running a country.
Already done.
In Hungary.
If you don't care about the deficit you are basically saying "print it".]
Buy Gold! Not Lol. Apologies I watch too much Max Keiser. (FTR - I buy silver)
You are quite right! Many thanks for pointing out the error.
Corrected table: It makes St. George's forecasting achievements even more remarkable!
As most of Europe will actually be voting on Sunday, it isn't exactly practical to release the results before then, is it?
As others have said, the pleasures of the count may wear off a bit when you've done it lots of times, but of what human activity can one not say that?
Having said that - Pirate Party - I guess you'd be following your principles if you didn't.
Politics gets confusing.
I assume you find nothing objectionable with the idea.
I find it quite as appealing an idea as Danny DeLaRue''s 'Print and be Damned' proposals.
There is an excitement to it but I remember it as being very draining, and you're also trying to get a feel for what's happening elsewhere, and because you know the people involved (who may be unemployed tomorrow) it has an emotional edge to it.
An election night party where you just watch the results roll in, have a few drinks and discuss them with people is much more fun.
Bottle of Scotch and 20 [insert cig packet here]
You'll be asleep by 4.30 - see all the best bits - and wake up fresh.
Apologies - it's post lagershed.
http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/elections
I have a vivid recollection of wanting to sink into the floor when she turned up to her first local branch meeting, suavely swanning into a grotty room above a pub in her ocelot jacket, and declining to sit at the table because it would make the number an unlucky 13. Undeterred, the branch asked if she'd like to be Membership Secretary, a post they'd been trying to fill for months (she accepted cheerfully, as she did most things in life).
Since I'm so proud of it I'll repeat my joke from last night-
Today progamme: And now on the Today programme, UKIP
Unemployed (insert 1 of 3 parties here) voters: Okay!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections,_2014#Metropolitan_boroughs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Fryer
Final post - report in the Guardian on slow broadband speeds:
"Two UK streets found slowest for broadband in a uSwitch test
Only 15% of UK residents have access to broadband speed of 30Mbps or higher, earning the 'superfast' tag"
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/apr/24/two-uk-streets-slowest-for-broadband
However, I usually got on much better with Labour opponents, although that night they were having a very bad time.
(a) the ballot papers are sorted into Con / Lab / LD / Green / Mixed.
(b) those with 3 votes for 3 candidates all of the same party are counted as one vote for each of the 3 candidates.
(c) the counting staff then work in pairs to allocate the votes from the "mixed" pile.
(i) person A looks at the paper and says "Bloggs, Jones, Smith"
(ii) person B ticks off one vote each for Bloggs, Jones and Smith
if the paper has a vote for Smith only, person B ticks off 1 for Smith and 2 for "unused".
(d) the individual votes for each candidate are then added to the ones they got from the block-vote papers.
In my experience of standing in five main elections in 1994, 1998, 2002, 2006 and 2010, the proportion of ballot papers with block votes varied from about 85% to 62%. Obviously it varies a lot from place to place, and it would be fewer if there are lots of parties with only 1 or 2 candidates per ward.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/art-and-architecture/bacon-moore/article17826842/?page=all
http://www.ago.net/
On his other post, I've attended quite a few counts and iit says very little for the quality of some Returning Officers, and indeed Party Agents, that howlers of that sort can be made. I'm b*&%$y sure I'd have spotted them while walking round.
Incidentally, in my area we had counting agents; Party members who sat on each table to check on the work of the counters.
Of course, it's easy to wise when you're not there!
Can't let the general public onto the counting floor though. What happens if they touch a vote?
If a party person does, then their candidate can be penalised; but if some member of the public did then there's no easy penalty to apply.