In view of the seriousness of these charges [in truth nothing that all parties don't do, the difference being scale and winning], a snap general election might be the fairest solution.
This might provide a likely boost to most of our wallets, but that is incidental.
Multimillionaire internet marketing guru Michael Green Grant Shapps was on Daily Politics today denying he had anything to do with the campaign finances. He was pointing the finger at David Cameron's best friend, Lord Feldman.
The problem with crick allegations etc is trying to prove the value of several travelling buses that went around the country. Even crick has said it is hard to separate it all out, instead all he has done is totalled up a lot of costs and assigned them 100% to each individual constituency to come up with the claims they broke local funding rules.
It is clearly a fudge Tories (and I bet labour etc) have used over the years to boost local support via national funding, but it is far from clear cut if they have just been exploiting a loophole or something more. Crick reports always contain phrases like it is "debatable" that etc etc etc
The problem with crick allegations etc is trying to prove the value of several travelling buses that went around the country. Even crick has said it is hard to separate it all out, instead all he has done is totalled up a lot of costs and assigned them 100% to each individual constituency to come up with the claims they broke local funding rules.
It is clearly a fudge Tories (and I bet labour etc) have used over the years to boost local support via national funding, but it is far from clear cut if they have just been exploiting a loophole or something more. Crick reports always contain phrases like it is "debatable" that etc etc etc
They could have been a bit more subtle than booking loads of hotel rooms in the name of "Mr. Conservatives"; say "Mr. M. Mouse", or "Mr. P. Nesshead."
John Smith was the old favourite. I don't think it's just about fairness but a sense that the Tories are hardly a political movement any more, just a well funded advertising machine based in W1. Of course the activists are genuine but needing a mobile army to be bussed around the provinces.
The problem with crick allegations etc is trying to prove the value of several travelling buses that went around the country. Even crick has said it is hard to separate it all out, instead all he has done is totalled up a lot of costs and assigned them 100% to each individual constituency to come up with the claims they broke local funding rules.
It is clearly a fudge Tories (and I bet labour etc) have used over the years to boost local support via national funding, but it is far from clear cut if they have just been exploiting a loophole or something more. Crick reports always contain phrases like it is "debatable" that etc etc etc
It's the law and no-one is above it.
What the law says & what the Tories have done is unclear is they broke it or have been exploiting a loophole & that is before you get to if 100% of the cost should be assigned to each constituency eg sometimes they stayed outside of it, they could claim the overnight was so they could get to the next days visit (should the cost be 100% or 50/50).
I can see all sorts of arguments that not 100% of the cost of the bus is local or national.
Travelling buses have always been counted as a national, not local, expense haven't they? Which count towards national cost limits. There was nothing innovative, unique or original here - nor any attempt at dishonesty.
If they're to count against the local expenses then that should be said beforehand. The Electoral Commission ought to be clear as what is and is not counted and how it will be broken down.
Either set the rules clearly or just go down the American route and abolish spending limits.
Crick is a massively irritating prat who hates tories. I trust sense will prevail and this will come to nothing and we can get on with more important issues.
If anyone genuinely thinks that a few activists on a bus handing out leaflets swung the election they are delusional. As a rule zealots of any party wearing rosettes and enthusiastically thrusting leaflets into my hand put me off rather than persuade me
Crick is a massively irritating prat who hates tories. I trust sense will prevail and this will come to nothing and we can get on with more important issues.
If anyone genuinely thinks that a few activists on a bus handing out leaflets swung the election they are delusional. As a rule zealots of any party wearing rosettes and enthusiastically thrusting leaflets into my hand put me off rather than persuade me
I like Crick, he goes where the story is. He did so much to help Andrew Mitchell
It would be interesting to see of course if all the union's expenditure ( both in terms of Staff, resources and funds) in supporting Labour Candidates were also declared and applied against election expenses.
Crick is a massively irritating prat who hates tories. I trust sense will prevail and this will come to nothing and we can get on with more important issues.
If anyone genuinely thinks that a few activists on a bus handing out leaflets swung the election they are delusional. As a rule zealots of any party wearing rosettes and enthusiastically thrusting leaflets into my hand put me off rather than persuade me
I like Crick, he goes where the story is. He did so much to help Andrew Mitchell
I've been thinking about that PMQs today and the conclusion that I have come to is that the Speaker (as usual) really fell down on the job. Cameron should simply not have been allowed to do what he did. He pretty much ignored the questions that Corbyn asked (something to do with poverty and education, I think) and asked questions of him with a series of serious accusations and charges fully exploiting Parliamentary privilege.
I suspect that Cameron was expecting to get stopped but as the Speaker did not intervene he just kept going and going. PMQs it wasn't. PMQs supposedly ran for a record 41 minutes today but in truth there was a 10 minute interval for Questions from the PM.
The Speaker may well take the view that party leaders are supposed to be big boys and girls who can look after themselves and it is not his job to protect them but questions went unanswered today and some particularly vicious bullying went on right under the Speaker's nose. Corbyn is an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency who is not fit for the office he aspires to but that really wasn't nice. I am far from sure that Parliament is enhanced by something like that.
I've been thinking about that PMQs today and the conclusion that I have come to is that the Speaker (as usual) really fell down on the job. Cameron should simply not have been allowed to do what he did. He pretty much ignored the questions that Corbyn asked (something to do with poverty and education, I think) and asked questions of him with a series of serious accusations and charges fully exploiting Parliamentary privilege.
I suspect that Cameron was expecting to get stopped but as the Speaker did not intervene he just kept going and going. PMQs it wasn't. PMQs supposedly ran for a record 41 minutes today but in truth there was a 10 minute interval for Questions from the PM.
The Speaker may well take the view that party leaders are supposed to be big boys and girls who can look after themselves and it is not his job to protect them but questions went unanswered today and some particularly vicious bullying went on right under the Speaker's nose. Corbyn is an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency who is not fit for the office he aspires to but that really wasn't nice. I am far from sure that Parliament is enhanced by something like that.
'an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency'
A description that would fit the Speaker even better I think.
I've been thinking about that PMQs today and the conclusion that I have come to is that the Speaker (as usual) really fell down on the job. Cameron should simply not have been allowed to do what he did. He pretty much ignored the questions that Corbyn asked (something to do with poverty and education, I think) and asked questions of him with a series of serious accusations and charges fully exploiting Parliamentary privilege.
I suspect that Cameron was expecting to get stopped but as the Speaker did not intervene he just kept going and going. PMQs it wasn't. PMQs supposedly ran for a record 41 minutes today but in truth there was a 10 minute interval for Questions from the PM.
The Speaker may well take the view that party leaders are supposed to be big boys and girls who can look after themselves and it is not his job to protect them but questions went unanswered today and some particularly vicious bullying went on right under the Speaker's nose. Corbyn is an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency who is not fit for the office he aspires to but that really wasn't nice. I am far from sure that Parliament is enhanced by something like that.
'an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency'
A description that would fit the Speaker even better I think.
Squeaker was the same last week. He's normally very interventionist - something has changed his behaviour.
The only seat I reckon where the result could have been even remotely influenced in 2015 by a one day visit by a battle bus would be The Gower.
Adrian Sanders, the LibDem candidate in Torbay and previous MP, was on social media on the day they appeared belittling these Tory volunteers for being useless and not having a clue of their way around the constituency. But now he will no doubt be suggesting that single event lost him the seat.
Jack Blanchard Here's the Q&A of Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman telling us Corbyn didn't *actually* say Labour won't lose seats tomorrow https://t.co/YZj7gqZR8I
Jack Blanchard Here's the Q&A of Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman telling us Corbyn didn't *actually* say Labour won't lose seats tomorrow https://t.co/YZj7gqZR8I
Team Chairman Milne....GE campaign is going to be a cracker if he is still in charge. Better make sure the crap Elvis Impersonator is free for the whole month.
Jack Blanchard Here's the Q&A of Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman telling us Corbyn didn't *actually* say Labour won't lose seats tomorrow https://t.co/YZj7gqZR8I
Team Chairman Milne....GE campaign is going to be a cracker if he is still in charge. Better make sure the crap Elvis Impersonator is free for the whole month.
Labour better block-book thousands of beds for travelling activists in the Heartbreak Hotel....
We had a visit from the Battle Bus. Had a chat with some of the activists who'd come up on it - they had James Wharton posters and maps but had no idea where they were. But allegedly when knocking on doors asking about voting for the local candidate with local posters it wasn't actually about the local candidate but was actually a national campaign.
BTW I have no knowledge whether Wharton declared it, whether or not it would tip him over his spending limit or even whether he is on the list. But the "its a national campaign" excuse from CCHQ is patent nonsense. We had a visit from Harriet Harpyperson in her godawful pink bus - that was a national campaign. The Tory Battle Bus was nationally organised but locally applied. Suggestions of "this is a non-story" clearly know more about electoral law than the Electoral Commission.
"It is possible that criminal proceedings could be taken but what could be really troubling is if the elections in those seats were annulled and new votes would have to take place. Cameron could feasibly lose his majority."
We had a visit from the Battle Bus. Had a chat with some of the activists who'd come up on it - they had James Wharton posters and maps but had no idea where they were. But allegedly when knocking on doors asking about voting for the local candidate with local posters it wasn't actually about the local candidate but was actually a national campaign.
BTW I have no knowledge whether Wharton declared it, whether or not it would tip him over his spending limit or even whether he is on the list. But the "its a national campaign" excuse from CCHQ is patent nonsense. We had a visit from Harriet Harpyperson in her godawful pink bus - that was a national campaign. The Tory Battle Bus was nationally organised but locally applied. Suggestions of "this is a non-story" clearly know more about electoral law than the Electoral Commission.
Talking of buses who could possibly forget this absolute total cluster feck from Labour at the last GE.
Jack Blanchard Here's the Q&A of Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman telling us Corbyn didn't *actually* say Labour won't lose seats tomorrow https://t.co/YZj7gqZR8I
Team Chairman Milne....GE campaign is going to be a cracker if he is still in charge. Better make sure the crap Elvis Impersonator is free for the whole month.
And better have plenty of northern Labour voters lined up ready to be denounced as bigots.
The Standard's endorsement of Zac is about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. They've never eulogised him as they did Boris but they have and always will, I imagine, choose a Conservative over a Labour candidate.
As to whether it will make a scintilla of difference - we'll see.
As, according to Innocent, I am either stupid or vicious I'll have to see if I can utilise this insight as far as my Second Preference vote tomorrow is concerned.
"It is possible that criminal proceedings could be taken but what could be really troubling is if the elections in those seats were annulled and new votes would have to take place. Cameron could feasibly lose his majority."
Is that even a possibility?
In the silly world of hyperbole, anything is possible. Anyway, Labour's silence over this issue has been deafening.
'The story fuels a narrative the Tories didn't win fairly'
Where is that 'narrative' beyond the minds of the most conspiracy theory obsessed leftist?
Too many 'shrewdies' on here still can;t get beyond the fact their analysis of May 2015 was total horsesh8t. Just like their view that Trump had no chance at the nomination and remain would win the referendum comfortably.
The Standard's endorsement of Zac is about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. They've never eulogised him as they did Boris but they have and always will, I imagine, choose a Conservative over a Labour candidate.
As to whether it will make a scintilla of difference - we'll see.
As, according to Innocent, I am either stupid or vicious I'll have to see if I can utilise this insight as far as my Second Preference vote tomorrow is concerned.
The Tories won fairly. I don't think Labour's heart was in it. They put up Ed Miliband for flip's sake.
That might come back to haunt you.
It's incredible that TSE even has to assert that. There are some on here that blame the voters for not going the way the polls suggested they would. They would seemingly prefer election by poll.
They see the pollsters as unimpeachable scientists
Travelling buses have always been counted as a national, not local, expense haven't they? Which count towards national cost limits. There was nothing innovative, unique or original here - nor any attempt at dishonesty.
If they're to count against the local expenses then that should be said beforehand. The Electoral Commission ought to be clear as what is and is not counted and how it will be broken down.
Either set the rules clearly or just go down the American route and abolish spending limits.
I've been slightly involved in this - the Mirror had a comment from me that it was "worrying" - but I've not got seriously engaged, since I think it has to be a non-partisan investigation, and I won't express an opinion on whether the law was broken. Labour is not getting involved either. But, without going into the claims in detail, it's not as simple a case as you think.
Whatever the outcome, parties do need to know where they stand. Busloads of people presenting themselves in marginals as campaigners for a local candidate (there's plenty of evidence of that) and staying in local hotels at the party's expense certainly push the envelope of what "national" means. If it's legal, OK, we should all do it, but in general I think constituency spending limits should be tighter, not less tight. The same applies to other well-known borderline stuff - national letters to voters who happen to live in marginals, posters just outside the constituency but on the approach roads, central phone canvassing and social media stuff, etc. And yes, some of that gets done by all parties, which gives a better basis for a non-partisan commission to fix some more solid rules. The Fiona Jones case with its many twists and turns was a god example of how ambiguity can go horribly wrong.
Incidentally, criminal prosecution for exceeding the spending limit is not dependent on whether the extra spending made a difference to the result. In that, it differs from minor breaches of electoral law (incorrect imprint on a leaflet, that sort of thing), where in practice I think the rule is that nobody is too bothered unless it probably changed the outcome.
[snip] Whatever the outcome, parties do need to know where they stand. Busloads of people presenting themselves in marginals as campaigners for a local candidate (there's plenty of evidence of that) and staying in local hotels at the party's expense certainly push the envelope of what "national" means. If it's legal, OK, we should all do it, but in general I think constituency spending limits should be tighter, not less tight. The same applies to other well-known borderline stuff - national letters to voters who happen to live in marginals, posters just outside the constituency but on the approach roads, central phone canvassing and social media stuff, etc. ...
The distinction between local and national spending does seem rather artificial. For example, the Edstone was unveiled in what was seen as the key marginal of Hastings & Rye. That presumably wasn't coincidence - it wasn't engraved in Hastings, AFAIK, it was lugged there intentionally - so should its cost have counted towards the constituency expenditure*?
@ScottyNational: Ballot Paper:After feedback from the General Election, it please indicate who you want to represent you after the SNP candidate is suspended
As far as I understand the legislation. If it can be established that
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND - the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
The Tories won fairly. I don't think Labour's heart was in it. They put up Ed Miliband for flip's sake.
That might come back to haunt you.
It's incredible that TSE even has to assert that. There are some on here that blame the voters for not going the way the polls suggested they would. They would seemingly prefer election by poll.
They see the pollsters as unimpeachable scientists
As far as I understand the legislation. If it can be established that
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND - the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
I don’t ever recall being offered hotel or travel expenses when going to help Liberal candidates in the Good Old Days.
I’ve got to say, withough going through Lallands Peat Worrier blog in detail, I find it difficult to conceive of many people being bussed (or whatever) into Orkney & Shetland!
Shows Why Cameron felt free to offer the referendum. In May 2015 the gap was 20%
For some reason (moving average no doubt) the gap keeps growing despite no polls during that period. Remove the outliers at ~60% and the average hasn't changed all that much.
As far as I understand the legislation. If it can be established that
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND - the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
I don’t ever recall being offered hotel or travel expenses when going to help Liberal candidates in the Good Old Days.
I’ve got to say, withough going through Lallands Peat Worrier blog in detail, I find it difficult to conceive of many people being bussed (or whatever) into Orkney & Shetland!
I wasn't clear in my comment. The legal point LPW was making was that the Representation of the People Act is very prescriptive. If it's found that expenses were falsely declared and the candidate didn't take reasonable measures to prevent it, there will be a series of by-elections. No ifs or buts.
As far as I understand the legislation. If it can be established that
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND - the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
I don’t ever recall being offered hotel or travel expenses when going to help Liberal candidates in the Good Old Days.
I’ve got to say, withough going through Lallands Peat Worrier blog in detail, I find it difficult to conceive of many people being bussed (or whatever) into Orkney & Shetland!
Think of it this way - if the 100 Tory marginals are declared to have overspent then there should be plenty of interesting betting opportunities.
Does anyone know the process by which the one-year deadline can be extended and the criteria for doing so?
I don't think this is right. In terms of s89 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 as amended the appropriate officer must make available the return of a candidate for 2 years from the date of receipt and make copies of it available to anyone that asks on payment of a modest fee. After that he is entitled to destroy them.
Not everything in this legislation makes sense but it would seem surprising if the return has to be available for 2 years but is only capable of being challenged for 1 year after the election.
The time limits for an election petition are very short and set out in s122. Basically, as far as I can see there is 28 days in which to lodge such a petition, that period starting 10 days after the return was received or should have been received. I think I am right in saying the return should be lodged within 35 days of the election.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 Sch.9 Part 2
As far as I understand the legislation. If it can be established that
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND - the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
I don’t ever recall being offered hotel or travel expenses when going to help Liberal candidates in the Good Old Days.
I’ve got to say, withough going through Lallands Peat Worrier blog in detail, I find it difficult to conceive of many people being bussed (or whatever) into Orkney & Shetland!
Think of it this way - if the 100 Tory marginals are declared to have overspent then there should be plenty of interesting betting opportunities.
(How does Paddy Ashdown uneat his hat?)
That was going through my mind too! I can’t though believe the Tories would be that contemptuous of the law/plain stupid.
Comments
This might provide a likely boost to most of our wallets, but that is incidental.
They could have been a bit more subtle than booking loads of hotel rooms in the name of "Mr. Conservatives"; say "Mr. M. Mouse", or "Mr. P. Nesshead."
It is clearly a fudge Tories (and I bet labour etc) have used over the years to boost local support via national funding, but it is far from clear cut if they have just been exploiting a loophole or something more. Crick reports always contain phrases like it is "debatable" that etc etc etc
I can see all sorts of arguments that not 100% of the cost of the bus is local or national.
Kick the corrupt Tories out!!!
This is serious stuff - why isn't this making the news? Establishment cover-up?
If they're to count against the local expenses then that should be said beforehand. The Electoral Commission ought to be clear as what is and is not counted and how it will be broken down.
Either set the rules clearly or just go down the American route and abolish spending limits.
http://www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/evening-standard-comment-our-manifesto-for-the-next-london-mayor-a3239766.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_by-election,_1997
Crick is a massively irritating prat who hates tories. I trust sense will prevail and this will come to nothing and we can get on with more important issues.
If anyone genuinely thinks that a few activists on a bus handing out leaflets swung the election they are delusional. As a rule zealots of any party wearing rosettes and enthusiastically thrusting leaflets into my hand put me off rather than persuade me
I suspect that Cameron was expecting to get stopped but as the Speaker did not intervene he just kept going and going. PMQs it wasn't. PMQs supposedly ran for a record 41 minutes today but in truth there was a 10 minute interval for Questions from the PM.
The Speaker may well take the view that party leaders are supposed to be big boys and girls who can look after themselves and it is not his job to protect them but questions went unanswered today and some particularly vicious bullying went on right under the Speaker's nose. Corbyn is an over-promoted fool with delusions of competency who is not fit for the office he aspires to but that really wasn't nice. I am far from sure that Parliament is enhanced by something like that.
A description that would fit the Speaker even better I think.
* note to self - save it this time
Corbyn - waffle waffle waffle, I am against Antisemitism.
Cameron - What about your friends Hamas and Hezbollah.
Corbyn - Waffle
Cameron - Come on, denounce calling them friends.
Corbyn - Waffle
Cameron - Come one...
Corbyn - Waffle....
Adrian Sanders, the LibDem candidate in Torbay and previous MP, was on social media on the day they appeared belittling these Tory volunteers for being useless and not having a clue of their way around the constituency. But now he will no doubt be suggesting that single event lost him the seat.
Yeah, right.
Here's the Q&A of Jeremy Corbyn's spokesman telling us Corbyn didn't *actually* say Labour won't lose seats tomorrow https://t.co/YZj7gqZR8I
Wonder what happened to that little muppet.
BTW I have no knowledge whether Wharton declared it, whether or not it would tip him over his spending limit or even whether he is on the list. But the "its a national campaign" excuse from CCHQ is patent nonsense. We had a visit from Harriet Harpyperson in her godawful pink bus - that was a national campaign. The Tory Battle Bus was nationally organised but locally applied. Suggestions of "this is a non-story" clearly know more about electoral law than the Electoral Commission.
Is that even a possibility?
http://tinyurl.com/z3z5xju
The Standard's endorsement of Zac is about as surprising as the Sun rising in the east tomorrow morning. They've never eulogised him as they did Boris but they have and always will, I imagine, choose a Conservative over a Labour candidate.
As to whether it will make a scintilla of difference - we'll see.
As, according to Innocent, I am either stupid or vicious I'll have to see if I can utilise this insight as far as my Second Preference vote tomorrow is concerned.
http://labourlist.org/2015/04/miliband-says-labour-members-have-had-4-million-conversations-and-aims-for-a-million-more/
Where is that 'narrative' beyond the minds of the most conspiracy theory obsessed leftist?
Too many 'shrewdies' on here still can;t get beyond the fact their analysis of May 2015 was total horsesh8t. Just like their view that Trump had no chance at the nomination and remain would win the referendum comfortably.
https://twitter.com/ms_peaceweaver/status/727827762413735936
You may not like it, but it's true.
They see the pollsters as unimpeachable scientists
Whatever the outcome, parties do need to know where they stand. Busloads of people presenting themselves in marginals as campaigners for a local candidate (there's plenty of evidence of that) and staying in local hotels at the party's expense certainly push the envelope of what "national" means. If it's legal, OK, we should all do it, but in general I think constituency spending limits should be tighter, not less tight. The same applies to other well-known borderline stuff - national letters to voters who happen to live in marginals, posters just outside the constituency but on the approach roads, central phone canvassing and social media stuff, etc. And yes, some of that gets done by all parties, which gives a better basis for a non-partisan commission to fix some more solid rules. The Fiona Jones case with its many twists and turns was a god example of how ambiguity can go horribly wrong.
Incidentally, criminal prosecution for exceeding the spending limit is not dependent on whether the extra spending made a difference to the result. In that, it differs from minor breaches of electoral law (incorrect imprint on a leaflet, that sort of thing), where in practice I think the rule is that nobody is too bothered unless it probably changed the outcome.
What am I missing?
* and if so, for which party?
- The electoral agent, who has sole responsibility for declaring expenses, made a false declaration. AND
- the candidate is unable to demonstrate that he was unaware and and took reasonable steps to avoid false statements being made.
... then the elected MP will be struck off and can't stand again. The first points have to be proved, but if they are, the consequences are essentially automatic.
The Lallands Peat Worrier blog has a fair amount about this in relation to Alistair Carmichael.
What makes this tricky for the Conservatives in my view is that the non-declaration seems to have been systematic and was also done for the UKIP prompted by-elections prior to the general election. In this case the national campaign versus local campaign argument clearly doesn't apply, even though time limits prevent those elections being disputed.
I’ve got to say, withough going through Lallands Peat Worrier blog in detail, I find it difficult to conceive of many people being bussed (or whatever) into Orkney & Shetland!
First preference: Sadiq Khan (45%), Zac Goldsmith (33%), Others combined (21%)
Including second preferences: Sadiq Khan (57%), Zac Goldsmith (43%)
http://www.tnsglobal.co.uk/press-release/tns-poll-sadiq-khan-course-be-next-london-mayor
The Spectator continues it's evolution into the New Statesman.
LPW is very anti-Carmichael btw.
(How does Paddy Ashdown uneat his hat?)
Not everything in this legislation makes sense but it would seem surprising if the return has to be available for 2 years but is only capable of being challenged for 1 year after the election.
The time limits for an election petition are very short and set out in s122. Basically, as far as I can see there is 28 days in which to lodge such a petition, that period starting 10 days after the return was received or should have been received. I think I am right in saying the return should be lodged within 35 days of the election.
Unless there is some other provision that I have not found from my quick skim I am really not sure what the story is talking about. It may be that there is some other power given to the Electoral Commission which is not available to Joe Public.
As if MI7 will allow Khan to become Mayor...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41#schedule-9-part-II
I can’t though believe the Tories would be that contemptuous of the law/plain stupid.