Most
conspiracy theories are ludicrous. Those who peddle them are unhinged, unappreciated
loners with wild imaginations and too much spare time. This is, at least, what
officialdom would have us believe. According to Scottish philosopher David Hume
(1711-76), the explanation with fewest assumptions is usually the most credible,
but not always. Some theories hold true, but remain obscured, the passing of
time becoming the saviour of the conspirators.
Still,
there have been occasions when even the most outlandish claims are proven
conclusively. Perhaps the most famous is the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s. In a nutshell: the Democratic
Party HQ in Washington, DC was burgled by associates of White House staff.
Criminal investigations led to the conviction of 43 individuals and,
unprecedentedly, the impeachment and subsequent resignation of the incumbent (Republican)
president, Richard Nixon (1913-94).
The
world, understandably, recoiled in astonishment. When I read Fred Emery’s
definitive account of the saga, I could not help but wonder: what if there are
scandals of similar enormity out there, unsuspected by all except some
distrustful, underemployed nobody living in a trailer park or bedsit? Few would
listen, because such a person would be damned by his own circumstances as soon
as he opened his mouth. We must, however, acknowledge another reason why
conspiracy theories tend to be championed by outsiders: they, unlike most, have
little by way of reputation to lose and thus not much to fear from ridicule.
In
my own lifetime, one such theory has persistently intrigued me. Twenty years ago, almost to the day, a general election was held in the UK. John
Major’s Conservative government had been languishing in the opinion polls. Its nationwide
unpopularity stemmed from many issues, not least the nation’s membership of the
European Union’s currency exchange rate mechanism, which was prolonging a
bitter recession (in much the same way that Eurozone membership is crippling
Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain today). Meanwhile, Neil Kinnock’s
Labour opposition was on the up, having purged itself of self-defeating Marxist
tendencies in the 1980s. Most political analysts predicted a comfortable Labour
victory. Opinion polls concurred, right up to – and including – the Election Day exit polls.
The
result was the biggest electoral surprise in decades. Major and his beleaguered
Conservatives won with a majority of 21 parliamentary seats (Figure 38.1),
having polled 2.5 million more votes than Labour. It was the highest
single-party vote in British history. The pollsters had missed the target by a
whopping 9% (Figure 38.2). There have since been four further general elections,
the results of each having been forecast accurately, as opinion polling becomes
ever more sophisticated. 1992 was a stark anomaly – indeed the only one in the
last 40 years of British elections.
Figure 38.1: A look of
surprise? John Major, back in Downing Street in 1992
Copyright © 2010 Sky News
Figure 38.2: The result
that none of the pollsters had come close to predicting
Copyright © 1994 Market
Research Society
The
Market Research Society held an
inquiry into the shock result. One explanation it gave was that thousands of
Conservatives, when questioned, had lied about their voting intention. Another suggested
factor was Kinnock’s cringeworthy behaviour at a pre-election rally in
Sheffield (Figure 38.3). In my view, both hypotheses seem too far-fetched and,
in any case, lack direct evidence.
Figure
38.3: Neil Kinnock’s misplaced pre-election triumphalism (on April Fools’ Day)
Copyright
© 1992 BBC
Could
there be an alternative explanation? Did the polling organizations really get it so hopelessly wrong?
Let
me begin by stating the obvious. The first and principal objective of any
ruling elite is the preservation of its own power. History provides repeated
proof of this, and some rulers will stop at nothing, especially if they believe
they can hoodwink the masses. Even the basic tenets of democracy can be viewed
as mere obstacles to be overcome. (Look no further than the European Union.) Ballot-rigging
is rife throughout the world, not only among despotic regimes paying half-baked
lip service to ‘people power’, but also among developed nations. During the US
presidential election of 2000, for instance, there were so many voting
discrepancies in the crucial state of Florida, it was scarcely believable that
a repeat ballot was not ordered by the Supreme Court.
On
this issue, the UK has no right to look down on Americans with any sense of moral
superiority. Voting ‘irregularities’ are equally commonplace this side of the
Atlantic. The simplest method is to conjure non-existent voters. There have been
documented examples of derelict properties supposedly housing multiple
residents (Brighton, 1993), and foreign students unknowingly having their
identities used (Hackney, 1998). Furthermore, no one ever checks electoral
registers for fraudulent registrations. In 1999, it was reported (by George
Howarth, MP) that electoral register discrepancies accounted for a staggering 10%
of all entries, enough to swing even the most one-sided contest.
Another
godsend to fraudsters is the law allowing postal voting. This was designed for
the benefit of expats and those with a nominated proxy. Unfortunately, as the Guardian’s Nick Davies pointed out in
2001, postal vote applications can be collected and rewritten as applications
for proxy votes, then cast by, for example, party activists. This happened in
1992. In a residential home in Cornwall, a Conservative Party worker collected
postal vote forms from elderly residents, before applying for proxy votes in the
names of his co-workers. There were more than 70 post-election complaints;
although some individuals raised no objections, having died prior to ‘voting’.
I
admit, the numbers are small. Nevertheless, the 1992 result was determined by
fewer than 1,300 votes in just eleven marginal constituencies. A mere twenty
residential homes, dotted across the country, would have provided enough weight
to tip the national balance.
Two
years later, the government stated: ‘Voting
in person at the local polling station in general provides the least
opportunity for impersonation or electoral fraud.’ Despite this being
self-evident, postal voting has since been made available to everyone, no questions
asked. One is entitled to speculate why postal vote applications rose by up to
2000% within a month of the legislation being passed.
The
fact that all British political parties have engaged in localized
ballot-rigging (Figure 38.4) compels us to ask: could electoral fraud be
orchestrated systematically by the State? This outrageous question might one
day be asked about Thursday, April 9th, 1992 – by disreputable conspiracy
theorists and sober historians alike.
Figure
38.4: Fact or fiction?
Copyright
© 2010 Thailand Times
Copyright
© 2012 Paul Spradbery