The Left’s track record on elections leads one to doubt the Manchester result.

It’s all gone quiet in the Tory press (and the Tory leakership) on the subject of Ed Miliband’s ‘election’. There’s a very good reason for this: they’re absolutely delighted with the Labour Party’s decision. In 2008, that same Conservative elite know perfectly well that Gordon Brown was a mental basket-case. And for the same reason, they let an odd nature take its course.

But this is the sort of myopic attitude which means that I could never be a Tory. If you set out your stall as the Party who cares about Britain – and the vast majority of its grass-roots workers do exactly that – then it behoves you to point out any and all threats to our libertarian democracy….such of it as is left. There is a massive hypocrisy in there, and no archaeologists need apply for the job of uncovering it.

It’s long been my view that there is an attitudinal propensity to electoral cheating on the Left. It stems from 1968, when as an electoral returning officer involved in student politics, I discovered (along with others) an obvious case of ballot fraud attempted by Maoist militants. I well remember the young Robert Kilroy-Silk – far-Left wannabe Labour MP and, much later, UKIP racist – accusing us of  ‘reactionary desperation’ in pointing out the irregularities.

During that joint honours course in History & Politics, I took a Part II exam wherein lay the question, ‘Socialist Democracy is an oxymoron. Discuss’. I seem to remember answering by saying that Social Democracy was OK, but Socialist democracy merely offered a choice of bigots. I still believe this. And your average bigot – believing that the ends always justify the means – is no respecter of electoral niceties.

The Daily Telegraph’s Andrew Gilligan has worked long and hard to uncover <!–[if !mso]> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } <![endif]–>malpractice among East London’s odd Hard Left/Islamist dalliance. Sky News reported in early April 2010 that the Metropolitan Police had confirmed 28 allegations of polling irregularities made in East London.

Under the leadership election system employed by the Labour party, three electoral colleges are allocated an equal share of the voting weight. They consist of MPs and MEPs, party members, and the largest and most numerous group, trade unionists and socialist society members. As an individual may be a member of both a trade union and multiple socialist organistions, it is perfectly possible for one voter to have numerous ballot papers sent to them, and therefore a greater voice in the election.’Vote early and often’ as they used to say in Ireland.

UNITE wrote to all its 400,000 electorate urging them to vote for Ed Miliband. And although it is expressly against Party rules, the GMB Union didn’t just print a photograph of Ed on the outside of the envelope, they also included a ringing endorsement from GMB leader Paul Kenny in the same package. “I believe that Ed Miliband is the person best placed to deliver for GMB members,” he wrote  “That is why GMB is asking you to put him as your top preference on the enclosed ballot paper.”

I wonder how Labour would’ve reacted if Zac Goldsmith had bribed the Richmond returning officer to put him first in Dayglo Blue on the ballot paper…along with a recommendation to vote for him?  Goldsmith did nothing wrong, but these creepy hypocrites still tried to smear him; and of course, they had no trouble in recruiting Channel Four to help them.

Doubts about the result of the Labour leadership contest aren’t diluted by the bizarre, last-minute rush of support for EdM. Although the redistributed preferences offer a perfect cover for fraud, they don’t help explain why DavidM’s support slumped from a predicted 75% to 56% between the second and third week in September. A Labour insider told The Slog at the weekend:

“We were getting returns showing that David was walking it. Then out of the blue, he up and says he’d serve under his brother. I mean, what the f**k was that all about?”

We can perhaps write that comment off to sour grapes. But doubts remain about this election. The trade unions had to be dragged screaming into democratic liberalism by the Mad Handbag, but their instincts are still to get their man (or woman) elected – come what may. Charlie Whelan has kept a low profile, but from a position of being seemingly sidelined last April, his mates are now running the Labour Party. Those who write off accusations of a Labour Party lurching to the left as standard Tory spin are being dim about this: Ed Balls wouldn’t have worn being Shadow Chancellor under DavidM. But he’s relishing the job under EdM. That tells you all you should need to know.