politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Guido says the Tories are bracing themselves for charges over

First!

Second ..... grrh!

I've just noticed that it's possible to back Labour at 510 to win Sleaford and Hykeham; that's equivalent to 483/1 in old money net of their 5% commission which must be something of a record for a major UK party. Worth printing off and sticking in the scrapbook methinks!

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

"PB sources have also reported concern within the Tory HQ about other seats"....any idea which ones, I had heard rumblings about Torbay and then the local Police and Crime Commissioner story got in the way...so it went quiet

A few days ago I backed the LibDems at evens with Laddies to finish ahead of Labour in Sleaford & Hykeham. Judging by the latest crazy odds against an overall Labour victory (as per my post below), the Yellow Team might still be value at the somewhat shorter odds of 4/7, but DYOR.

Guido needs a good story, perhaps this is it!

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

To get at least three steps ahead of ourselves looking at those 2015 figures there should be a Tatton style Independent in any Thanet South By-election with Lab/Lib/Green standing down. The other factor would be whether the incumbent would be a candidate. But as I say three steps ahead. Entirely hypothetical.

I'd have thought this was another reason to back #Mayday. I can't think of worse peacetime circumstances for a government to have it's narrow majority chipped away by By-elections than 2017.

Yet another reason to roll the clock back to 1 Jan 2014.

If this is true, it shows that David Cameron was more concerned with stopping Farage than winning the General Election itself. I'm sure PB Tories will be delighted with that.

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

CarlottaVance said:

rkrkrk said:

CarlottaVance said:

peter_from_putney said:

If true, this demonstrates a willful lack of control from Conservative Central Office and Mrs May owes a duty to ensure that heads roll and no mistake.

Feldman & Shapps are gone - McLoughlin became Chairman 14 months after the GE....

Isn't Shapps a Minister?
Could he go to prison?

No, he's a back bencher - stood down over the bullying allegations a year ago.

Thanks

Betfair now have a second place market for Sleaford ( the power of PB ? but only £20 has been matched. Might be worth checking during the day.

On Sleaford etc, I expect Labour to do ok. I took 11/8 yesterday on them getting 10-20% of the vote share and I'm happy with that.

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

AlastairMeeks said:

On Sleaford etc, I expect Labour to do ok. I took 11/8 yesterday on them getting 10-20% of the vote share and I'm happy with that.

I think so too. The Labour vote held up well there in 2010, they have a candidate who is pro Brexit and WWC, and there are big issues with the Lincs NHS.

Only the boundary commission could put the northern extremity of Thanet into Thanet South.

IanB2 said:

Only the boundary commission could put the northern extremity of Thanet into Thanet South.

The northernmost point of Ireland is not in Northern Ireland.

ydoethur said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

It's also surprising given the huge effort Labour put into local campaigns, leafleting, canvassing and phoning, all of which are expensive, and few of which used local activists. Heck, they even boasted about it repeatedly on the national news.

If the Tories are in breach, Labour undoubtedly will be as well. However, it isn't much of a story as it won them half a dozen seats at best (given the message from Miliband boiled down to 'vote for me because I'm not as weird as I come across and slightly less rich than the other guy' that's hardly surprising).

This does take you into a grey area relating to the boundary between personal expenditure and party expenditure. For candidates and agents there are some rules on personal expenditure, and some declarations that can be made (rarely fully observed IMO). For volunteer helpers it is a grey area.

For example I can drive to a distant by-election, spend a lot of money in petrol and hotel expenses whilst helping out, and this expenditure doesn't count as it is considered voluntary and personal to me.

A party can do what the Tories did, and provide incentive for people to do exactly the same but by hiring a coach, booking a hotel, and laying on free Transport and accommodation for the helpers (including some paid staff). Clearly an election expense under current rules, but one the Tories tried to argue was national expenditure despite it clearly being aimed at a small number of key locations.

Then there are grey areas like the Torbay Tory direct mail, which the Tories claim was national because it didn't actually mention Torbay or the local candidate's name, but was sent to lots of individual voters in the constituency and made references along the lines of 'in your area'. Personally I would see spending that can only influence a voter in one constituency as obviously local, but that isn't how the Tories have been arguing it.

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

Which tells me, apart from anything else, that this is a dud law that needs changing (especially in light of @IanB2's most informative reply - thank you).

Will it be changed? I hear the vote in turkey farms this year was for there to be no Christmas, so I'm guessing not!

There are plenty of laws that I consider duds. I don't break them just because I think that they're stupid. But politicians seem to think that different rules apply to them.

One answer might be to scrap the national/local distinction in relation to campaign spending limits, and require all spending to be attributed locally, either to the particular locality if it only affects voters in that area, or pro-rata spread across multiple constituencies for spending that is genuinely national or regional.

It might be more tricky in accounting terms (although not hugely so given that most parties budget in some detail for their campaigning in advance) but would at least reduce the scope for disguising obviously targeted spend within the much more generous national spending limits.

ydoethur said:

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

Which tells me, apart from anything else, that this is a dud law that needs changing.

Will it be changed? I hear the vote in turkey farms this year was for there to be no Christmas, so I'm guessing not!

Clearly the law is not being followed but which party wants to step up and say 'I think parties should be able to spend more in an election'? No matter if it's justified or not it would be seen as trying to buy elections. Like infant class size rules or motorway speed limits, maybe it should change but it looks too bad to suggest it.

New 'guidance' on national vs local spend, all parties saying that is helpful while only making minor comments about their opponents being the worst offenders?

Section 81 is concerned with the election agent who has to provide the "true return" of expenses. Section 82 is a declaration by the candidate and s84 states failure to comply is an "illegal practice". Section 112 is also interesting in that it provides that anyone knowingly providing money for expenditure not allowed under the Act is guilty of an illegal payment. It seems to me that this is the provision which is going to bring this to CCHQ. Interestingly, Westlaw indicates that there have been no reported cases to date under this legislation. The word "knowingly" is often quite a barrier for prosecutors.

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

My point was that Crick did investigate labour...

He does also say: In every single seat we’ve looked at, the costs of the Labour Express would not have pushed the candidate over the limit, even if they had been declared in full as local spending.

So your summary perhaps underplays the scale of difference between labour and tory bus spending.

may have missed it upthread, but what, specifically, were the LD's fined for?

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

Tories are bent as three bob bits

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

My point was that Crick did investigate labour...

He does also say: In every single seat we’ve looked at, the costs of the Labour Express would not have pushed the candidate over the limit, even if they had been declared in full as local spending.

So your summary perhaps underplays the scale of difference between labour and tory bus spending.

I think the bottom line is that most parties' national effort and national staff are likely to be focused principally on the their target seats, but the Tories have brought about the current controversy by formalising this into a minor industry with centrally funded mass-mailshots and free travel and accommodation for bus loads of helpers.

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

On topic, I'd always thought OGH considered Guido a bit infra dig......

......however, if the story is accurate - and given what's happened to the Lib Dems & Lab, and Crick's journalistic skill - there is a very good chance it's legit......in which case it's a belter.....

I should that PB sources have given a similar picture. I hope to be meeting Crick at a lunch later.

I rate Crick as a journalist (known him since Uni), while he may be a Labour sympathiser he's a journalist first and foremost and if he had a similar story about Labour I've no doubt he'd run it.

You may well be right, however I was just trying to remember the last time Crick ran a story of any size or importance against the Labour Party. That might of course simply be on account of them being as pure as the driven snow *cough*.

OGH: "The Crick investigation has looked mostly at the GE2015 expenses in crucial battlegrounds for the Tories."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

So labour are keeping suspiciously quiet, on the whole, in the face of otherwise juicy investigations into Tory misdeeds, but initial investigations show it to likely be less egregious breaches than the tories and evidence not as strong.

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

My point was that Crick did investigate labour...

He does also say: In every single seat we’ve looked at, the costs of the Labour Express would not have pushed the candidate over the limit, even if they had been declared in full as local spending.

So your summary perhaps underplays the scale of difference between labour and tory bus spending.

I think the bottom line is that most parties' national effort and national staff are likely to be focused principally on the their target seats, but the Tories have brought brought about the current controversy by formalising this into a minor industry with centrally funded mass-mailshots and free travel and accommodation for bus loads of helpers.

Agreed. Do you know why there is a national vs. local distinction? Wouldn't it be easier to just have one overall budget and let parties spend it as they see fit?

Suppose there were a referendum on abolishing election expense limits. How do we think that would play out?

If there was a re-run in Thanet South, would Farage stand and risk being kicked in the teeth by the voters for - what would it be - an eighth time?

Innocent_Abroad said:

Suppose there were a referendum on abolishing election expense limits. How do we think that would play out?

A referendum to abolish election expenses, and have one mail shot each paid for by the Treasury, might win by a landslide!

IanB2 said:

Only the boundary commission could put the northern extremity of Thanet into Thanet South.

The tube line that runs furthest south? The Northern Line
The most rural tube line? The Metropolitan Line.
The line that runs furthest from the centre? The Central Line.....

It's a national hobby coming up with misleading descriptors......

The Theranos comedy story rumbles on:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/12/trumps-mad-dog-stays-as-theranos-cuts-figureheads-and-outs-investors/

The reality is that with micro targeting, phone banks and social media campaigns the national campaigns have got very local where it is thought to matter. I think this puts the candidate and the mug persuaded to be his election agent in a very difficult situation. He or she may not even be asked or told about what the national campaign is doing on his behalf. He or she will almost certainly not be told what it cost. Indeed no one is likely to know as any allocation of the national resource will be little short of arbitrary.

None of this excuses an utter disregard for the law as it stood but it does indicate going forward that the law is not fit for purpose and needs changed. I really don't like public bodies imposing fairly arbitrary fines on parties who are unlikely (to put it mildly) to want to fight back. it is the sort of practice that gave the EU a bad name. I think these questions are best left to courts.

CarlottaVance said:

IanB2 said:

Only the boundary commission could put the northern extremity of Thanet into Thanet South.

The tube line that runs furthest south? The Northern Line
The most rural tube line? The Metropolitan Line.
The line that runs furthest from the centre? The Central Line.....

It's a national hobby coming up with misleading descriptors......

The whole point of the Metropolitan line was to create a metropolis! And it certainly opened up vast areas northwest of London to development.

Although the Brill Tramway, a small rural backwater line 40 miles north of London, seems to have been one of London Underground's oddest lines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brill_Tramway

JosiasJessop said:

The Theranos comedy story rumbles on:

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/12/trumps-mad-dog-stays-as-theranos-cuts-figureheads-and-outs-investors/

This is going to bring a lot of people down - their whole operation was marketing rather than science, they had no product at all except the cash of their investors.

not_on_fire said:

AlastairMeeks said:

IanB2 said:

Only the boundary commission could put the northern extremity of Thanet into Thanet South.

The northernmost point of Ireland is not in Northern Ireland.

The Northern Line in London does not serve the most northerly tube station. It does, however, serve the most southerly (Morden)

Under the Big Four railway companies, the London and North Eastern operated to the West Coast of Scotland, while Aberdeen on the East Coast was served by the LMS.

rkrkrk said:

IanB2 said:

rkrkrk said:

kle4 said:

rkrkrk said:

peter_from_putney said:

peter_from_putney said:

CarlottaVance said:

MikeSmithson said:

CarlottaVance said:

*.

."
Well there's a surprise!

I think Crick anticipated you:
https://www.channel4.com/news/by/michael-crick/blogs/labour-battlebus-operation

But pretty clear that in this sort of thing the general refrain 'they're all at it' is true, the degree just varies from place to place.

My point was that Crick did investigate labour...

He does also say: In every single seat we’ve looked at, the costs of the Labour Express would not have pushed the candidate over the limit, even if they had been declared in full as local spending.

So your summary perhaps underplays the scale of difference between labour and tory bus spending.

I think the bottom line is that most parties' national effort and national staff are likely to be focused principally on the their target seats, but the Tories have brought brought about the current controversy by formalising this into a minor industry with centrally funded mass-mailshots and free travel and accommodation for bus loads of helpers.

Agreed. Do you know why there is a national vs. local distinction? Wouldn't it be easier to just have one overall budget and let parties spend it as they see fit?

As anyone who has ever had to fill in the forms will know - like most of British democracy - the paperwork, terminology and rules are mostly unchanged since the 19th Century.

Originally there were only local candidates and local spending, and these were the original expenses rules that worked fine until the media age, when a much looser national limit was slapped on top to provide some constraint (not that it really does) on what the national parties could spend. I vaguely recall the latter being an innovation during the New Labour era, hoping to cap the Tory advantage in national financing.

Unless it has changed very recently, the constituency paperwork looks like something from an historical archive; when I first started out, the party issued copious guidance on how to back-translate a modern campaign into a format that a 19th Century squire would recognise; nowadays I think most agents write something like "see attached sheet" on the form and then submit something that looks like the budgeting spreadsheet for a small enterprise.

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

If there was a re-run in Thanet South, would Farage stand and risk being kicked in the teeth by the voters for - what would it be - an eighth time?

Depends how involved with the frontline he still wants to be I guess.

YellowSubmarine said:

@kle4 I think nobody knows, Hard and Soft Brexit are perhaps unhelpful terms and noone can know because it's a negotiation between 28 governments buffeted by God knows what over the next few years. I shared the link because I've found Charles Grant to be a nuanced and constructive voice over the last five months. That doesn't make him right if course.

I think also the extraordinary and clearly exquisitely staged " West of Suez " imagery we've being seeing of the last 48 hours is a Halley's Comet sized harbnger. In my mind of Doom but that may be my biases.

You're right hard and soft are not firmly defined. I'm convinced now, after some hopeful noises, that it will be seen as hard because it's do much easier to achieve given it is a 28 nation negotiation, the eu will want to be able to say we got very little, and the hard Brexit gang are much more passionate and organised, so if we get anything from Europe, however small, which requires contributions or the line, the Gov will need the overall deal to look very hard to placate them.

I see no indication that we're going to come to a deal with the EU with any speed, and the longer things drag on the greater the uncertainty. Therefore I prefer any deal that can be done quickly, so we know where we stand and can start making progress.

Though those in power might have a better idea of whether a quick deal is at all likely.

Only if it's a hard deal surely - it requires the least negotiation.

JosiasJessop said:

"Brexit: French financial regulator wooing London banks"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Would he be so public with it if it were not on the cards, or is it more of a pressure thing, I wonder.

DavidL said:

The reality is that with micro targeting, phone banks and social media campaigns the national campaigns have got very local where it is thought to matter. I think this puts the candidate and the mug persuaded to be his election agent in a very difficult situation. He or she may not even be asked or told about what the national campaign is doing on his behalf. He or she will almost certainly not be told what it cost. Indeed no one is likely to know as any allocation of the national resource will be little short of arbitrary.

None of this excuses an utter disregard for the law as it stood but it does indicate going forward that the law is not fit for purpose and needs changed. I really don't like public bodies imposing fairly arbitrary fines on parties who are unlikely (to put it mildly) to want to fight back. it is the sort of practice that gave the EU a bad name. I think these questions are best left to courts.

If May should go for a snap election, it would be interesting to see if any lessons have been learnt by the national Conservative Party, or whether the same style election would be rolled out again.

kle4 said:

JosiasJessop said:

"Brexit: French financial regulator wooing London banks"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38245646

Would he be so public with it if it were not on the cards, or is it more of a pressure thing, I wonder.

They're doing exactly what we'd be doing in their circumstances, and I daresay the banks and institutions are sniffing around to see what sort of deal they could get.

We need to make better offers, and use our advantages well. But do we have the ministerial team to do that?

MarqueeMark said:

DavidL said:

The reality is that with micro targeting, phone banks and social media campaigns the national campaigns have got very local where it is thought to matter. I think this puts the candidate and the mug persuaded to be his election agent in a very difficult situation. He or she may not even be asked or told about what the national campaign is doing on his behalf. He or she will almost certainly not be told what it cost. Indeed no one is likely to know as any allocation of the national resource will be little short of arbitrary.

None of this excuses an utter disregard for the law as it stood but it does indicate going forward that the law is not fit for purpose and needs changed. I really don't like public bodies imposing fairly arbitrary fines on parties who are unlikely (to put it mildly) to want to fight back. it is the sort of practice that gave the EU a bad name. I think these questions are best left to courts.

If May should go for a snap election, it would be interesting to see if any lessons have been learnt by the national Conservative Party, or whether the same style election would be rolled out again.

I think that would depend on what sort of punishments can be meted out and how long they take to occur. And how close they felt it would otherwise be. If they don't think those marginals need as much targeting, maybe not needed, if the worst that happens is a fine, then maybe if needed they would to the same.

JosiasJessop said:

kle4 said:

MarqueeMark said:

If there was a re-run in Thanet South, would Farage stand and risk being kicked in the teeth by the voters for - what would it be - an eighth time?

Depends how involved with the frontline he still wants to be I guess.

YellowSubmarine said:

@kle4 I think nobody knows, Hard and Soft Brexit are perhaps unhelpful terms and noone can know because it's a negotiation between 28 governments buffeted by God knows what over the next few years. I shared the link because I've found Charles Grant to be a nuanced and constructive voice over the last five months. That doesn't make him right if course.

I think also the extraordinary and clearly exquisitely staged " West of Suez " imagery we've being seeing of the last 48 hours is a Halley's Comet sized harbnger. In my mind of Doom but that may be my biases.

You're right hard and soft are not firmly defined. I'm convinced now, after some hopeful noises, that it will be seen as hard because it's do much easier to achieve given it is a 28 nation negotiation, the eu will want to be able to say we got very little, and the hard Brexit gang are much more passionate and organised, so if we get anything from Europe, however small, which requires contributions or the line, the Gov will need the overall deal to look very hard to placate them.

I see no indication that we're going to come to a deal with the EU with any speed, and the longer things drag on the greater the uncertainty. Therefore I prefer any deal that can be done quickly, so we know where we stand and can start making progress.

Though those in power might have a better idea of whether a quick deal is at all likely.

Yes. While all the political rhetoric is of "Hard Brexit vs no Brexit", one assumes that when the negotiators actually sit down the discussions will be somewhat more nuanced.

However, if that's actually the position of those around the table from the EU side as we sit down, then it would be for the best to exit quickly to avoid years of uncertainty. Business adapt to new realities more quickly than most people realise, but not knowing tomorrow's rules of the game is what kills them.

As a lawyer acquaintance of mine once said (paraphrasing); "the relevant laws have so many gaps that you could drive a coach and horses through them. What we need are more laws to close those gaps, so we can drive three coach and horses through!"

How does the law currently define local spending?

FT profile of May:

https://www.ft.com/content/2616fda2-bc06-11e6-8b45-b8b81dd5d080

JosiasJessop said:

As a lawyer acquaintance of mine once said (paraphrasing); "the relevant laws have so many gaps that you could drive a coach and horses through them. What we need are more laws to close those gaps, so we can drive three coach and horses through!"

How does the law currently define local spending?

Something along the lines of all spending to procure the election of a particular candidate. Hence the Tories not saying Vote for Toryboy or Vote Tory in Torbay, but vote Tory where you live.