The official statistics watchdog has condemned one of the government’s main arguments in favour of trialling compulsory voter ID, saying a claim that incidents of voter fraud had more than doubled in two years was misleading.

The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) made the comments after a voter complained about the claim, first made by the Cabinet Office, and then repeated by the five local boroughs testing voter ID on Thursday: Bromley, Woking, Gosport, Watford and Swindon.

The Cabinet Office said the trial for English voters was deemed necessary “after reports of alleged electoral fraud through voter impersonation more than doubled between 2014 and 2016”, citing Electoral Commission data.

The voter complained that not only was the dataset tiny – a rise from 21 cases in 2014 to 44 in 2016 – but that the Cabinet Office failed to mention that the number of allegations then fell by more than a third in 2017, to 28.



They also pointed out that in 2016, a year that included the EU referendum, more than twice as many votes were cast than in 2014, meaning the rise in cases was even more statistically meaningless.

Q&A How are you voting and why? Show Hide If you’re living in an area going to the polls in May we want to hear from you. Let us know which way you’re thinking of voting, and which issues are most crucial to you locally.

You can share your thoughts using our encrypted form here. One of our journalists may contact you to discuss further and we will feature some of your contributions in our reporting.

The voter complained to the UKSA citing the use of the statistic by Swindon, having initially seen the claim on a leaflet produced by the council. Even though the UKSA does not officially comment on local authority statistics, a staff member responded.

In an email passed by the voter to the Electoral Reform Society (ERS), they wrote: “We have reviewed the evidence presented in your email and we would tend to agree that the presentation of electoral fraud statistics in the letter is misleading. The figures could have been presented alongside the statement for clarity.”

The verdict from the UKSA, the official body tasked with ensuring government departments use statistics accurately and honestly, is another rebuff for a project which has been condemned for targeting an extremely rare problem while potentially disenfranchising vulnerable groups such as older people and the homeless, who might not have the necessary ID.

It has also emerged that none of the five trial areas have recorded any cases of voter impersonation in recent years, with one expert characterising the scheme as “a solution in search of a problem”.

This week the ERS said it believed the plans were deeply flawed and represented a “calculated effort by the government to make voting harder for some citizens”.

Could Grenfell cost the Tories control of Kensington and Chelsea? Read more

Darren Hughes, chief executive of the ERS, said the verdict of the statistics watchdog illustrated the “dodgy foundations” for the scheme.

He said: “Ministers are grasping at straws, and their draconian push to make ordinary voters show their papers before using their right to vote now looks desperate. The government must stop trying to trick voters and come clean.”

On Thursday voters in Bromley, Woking and Gosport will have to show photo ID, or two items showing their address from a list of approved documents. If they don’t possess these they can apply in person for a document allowing them to vote.

Those in Watford and Swindon must bring their polling cards, while there are separate tests connected to postal votes.



The Cabinet Office, which is leading the trial, argues that voter ID had been sought by the Electoral Commission and in a report on voting fraud by Tory MP Eric Pickles, and that voters in Northern Ireland have had to show ID since 2003.



The Cabinet Office declined to comment on the use of the statistics, saying in a statement: “The Electoral Commission has been clear that it wants to see the introduction of voter ID as a priority. Electoral fraud is unacceptable on any level, and vulnerabilities cannot be allowed to continue and undermine the integrity of our democracy.”