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

JosiasJessop said:

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?

Yes fill the pockets of the rich crooks , just what we need.

Miss Plato, yes, Meg.

Miles different to her predecessor, who was far quieter, and such a tidy drinker the water levels in the bowl had to be checked just to make sure he was actually drinking anything.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Another opportunity (or gaping hole in electoral law) exploited by the Conservative Party was the use of Youtube to evade broadcasting restrictions.

True indeed and where they have broken the law then they should be held fully to account.

However, as it was not illegal to use YouTube your use of the word "evade" in your post in an attempt to insinuate some illegality or breaking of the law had occurred is incorrect and the word should be "avoid."

But You knew that already of course which is why you purposely used the word "evade" to infer and smear something illegal had been done.

kle4 said:

I see Boris has been filmed saying Iran and Saudi Arabia act as puppeteers playing proxy wars in the Middle East. I guess that's something completely true which everyone knows but is not supposed to say, when foreign secretary?

Especially when you can add us, the yanks and the russkies to the charge sheet. Maybe the rules have changed in the Trump era.

Moses_ said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Another opportunity (or gaping hole in electoral law) exploited by the Conservative Party was the use of Youtube to evade broadcasting restrictions.

True indeed and where they have broken the law then they should be held to count.

However as it was not illegal to use YouTube your use of the word "evade" in your post in an attempt to insinuate illegality or breaking of the law is incorrect the word it is "avoid."

But You already know that of course which is why you purposely used the word "evade" to infer something illegal had been done.

I suggest that is arguable either way.

Although most of the focus has been on the hired bus and hotels, personally I think the direct mail is the greater breach.

If the local agent had produced exactly the same mailshot and posted it locally, there would be no argument that it was local expenditure, and not declaring it would be a clear breach of the law. Sending exactly the same addressed mailshot from a pillar box in SW1 shouldn't change things, and I don't see how a letter that is only going to be read by a voter in Torbay can ever be considered national expenditure just because it omits the local candidate's name?

IanB2 said:

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.

That's very interesting thanks. Sounds like system is ripe for reform...

IanB2 said:

Moses_ said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Another opportunity (or gaping hole in electoral law) exploited by the Conservative Party was the use of Youtube to evade broadcasting restrictions.

True indeed and where they have broken the law then they should be held to count.

However as it was not illegal to use YouTube your use of the word "evade" in your post in an attempt to insinuate illegality or breaking of the law is incorrect the word it is "avoid."

But You already know that of course which is why you purposely used the word "evade" to infer something illegal had been done.

I suggest that is arguable either way.

Although most of the focus has been on the hired bus and hotels, personally I think the direct mail is the greater breach.

If the local agent had produced exactly the same mailshot and posted it locally, there would be no argument that it was local expenditure, and not declaring it would be a clear breach of the law. Sending exactly the same addressed mailshot from a pillar box in SW1 shouldn't change things, and I don't see how a letter that is only going to be read by a voter in Torbay can ever be considered national expenditure just because it omits the local candidate's name?

Then so is it on tax evasion / avoidance..... But of course it isn't .....is it?

Next.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Submarine, huzzah!

[I hope you finish it, too].

Haven't started my copy, but I will. The downside with ebooks is at least unread physicals can be used as paperweights, doorstops or to impress people on a shelf. You actually need to read ebooks to get any use.

Mr. kle4, you should. It might just be the best book I've written (perhaps excepting Sir Edric, but that depends whether you want bloody treachery, or a man who is mostly drunk going on escapades with his trusty manservant).

OldKingCole said:

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

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/libdems-hit-with-maximum-fine-for-failing-to-declare-election-cash-a3414391.html

Moses_ said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

Another opportunity (or gaping hole in electoral law) exploited by the Conservative Party was the use of Youtube to evade broadcasting restrictions.

True indeed and where they have broken the law then they should be held fully to account.

However, as it was not illegal to use YouTube your use of the word "evade" in your post in an attempt to insinuate some illegality or breaking of the law had occurred is incorrect and the word should be "avoid."

But You knew that already of course which is why you purposely used the word "evade" to infer and smear something illegal had been done.

No. I mean what I wrote which is an entirely fair description and I cannot see what difference your quibbling about words makes. Of course the Conservatives used Youtube to show videos that could not be shown on television because it was legal. That is why they did it. Does evasion imply criminality anywhere apart from tax? If a politician evades questions, no-one supposes he should be arrested for disrespecting Jeremy Paxman. Your attempted smokescreen is absurd but if you prefer the other word, then fine but as you can see when it is substituted, the result is clumsy as it reads at first glance that it is the broadcasting of restrictions that is being avoided.

Another opportunity (or gaping hole in electoral law) exploited by the Conservative Party was the use of Youtube to avoid broadcasting restrictions.

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Christopher Snowden
"You asked me once, Winston, what was in Room 101. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." https://t.co/Qvr6jjs64E

Blimey!

Exactly. Typical BBC QT right-wing bias -- three Tories and only one Labour (and one from the Will "up him" Self party).

Tell me Mensch isn't out on manoeuvres!!!

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Christopher Snowden
"You asked me once, Winston, what was in Room 101. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." https://t.co/Qvr6jjs64E

Blimey!

Exactly. Typical BBC QT right-wing bias -- three Tories and only one Labour (and one from the Will "up him" Self party).

Tell me Mensch isn't out on manoeuvres!!!

To be cynical, it looks like a legitimate way of turning a holiday into a business trip.

tlg86 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Tory MP faces vote of no confidence over £13.5m loan to football team

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/tory-mp-faces-vote-of-no-confidence-over-135m-loan-to-football-team?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The police investigation also covers inquiries into £36,000 in donations made to Mackintosh’s local Conservative association and people associated with him by Howard Grossman, whose company, 1st Land, was contracted to manage the Sixfields development.

Despite the bulk of the money being paid to Grossman’s company, the firm building the new stand, Buckingham Group, stopped work in early 2015 having not been paid £1.9m they were owed, with 1st Land put into administration.

That does not look good.

Labour only 10% behind Tories in Northampton South
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northampton_South_(UK_Parliament_constituency)

tlg86 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Tory MP faces vote of no confidence over £13.5m loan to football team

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/tory-mp-faces-vote-of-no-confidence-over-135m-loan-to-football-team?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The police investigation also covers inquiries into £36,000 in donations made to Mackintosh’s local Conservative association and people associated with him by Howard Grossman, whose company, 1st Land, was contracted to manage the Sixfields development.

Despite the bulk of the money being paid to Grossman’s company, the firm building the new stand, Buckingham Group, stopped work in early 2015 having not been paid £1.9m they were owed, with 1st Land put into administration.

That does not look good.

It's been developing for some time. And no, it doesn't look good.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

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.

Nonsense on stilts from you.

Dave really wanted a majority above all else, and there was one seat Dave wanted to win more than any other seat and it wasn't Thanet South, it was Rochester and Strood.

I don't know why, but the defection of Mark Reckless really wound up a lot of Tories, Tories who are normally very cool and rational but it brought out the bloodlust in us them to kick Mark Reckless' fat arse.

How much did the Tories overspend by in Rochester then?

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Christopher Snowden
"You asked me once, Winston, what was in Room 101. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." https://t.co/Qvr6jjs64E

Blimey!

Exactly. Typical BBC QT right-wing bias -- three Tories and only one Labour (and one from the Will "up him" Self party).

Tell me Mensch isn't out on manoeuvres!!!

To be cynical, it looks like a legitimate way of turning a holiday into a business trip.

Could be an expensive business trip when/if she libels half a dozen people on live TV. Somebody should ask about the state of science journalism.

SquareRoot said:

Where is David L , Southam Observer and all the others who always seem to have a downer on English Cricket

Watching the cricket?

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

Problem with that is that it would allow paper candidates being put up with no funding or work on them at all allowing a few huge huge targeted seats.

Mr. 43, there's also external pressure from an electorate that voted to Leave.

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

I think parties should have maximum spending limits every year.

If for example they can only spend 10 million per year, and 15 million in an election year you have a level playing field and remove the need to get extra funding from every dodgy Tom, Dick and Harry. Cure both the cash raising and spending problems at once.

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Tory MP faces vote of no confidence over £13.5m loan to football team

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/tory-mp-faces-vote-of-no-confidence-over-135m-loan-to-football-team?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The police investigation also covers inquiries into £36,000 in donations made to Mackintosh’s local Conservative association and people associated with him by Howard Grossman, whose company, 1st Land, was contracted to manage the Sixfields development.

Despite the bulk of the money being paid to Grossman’s company, the firm building the new stand, Buckingham Group, stopped work in early 2015 having not been paid £1.9m they were owed, with 1st Land put into administration.

That does not look good.

It's been developing for some time. And no, it doesn't look good.

It does look like it might develop into a proper, old-fashioned corruption scandal from the 20th Century. Insert reference to popcorn here.

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

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.

Nonsense on stilts from you.

Dave really wanted a majority above all else, and there was one seat Dave wanted to win more than any other seat and it wasn't Thanet South, it was Rochester and Strood.

I don't know why, but the defection of Mark Reckless really wound up a lot of Tories, Tories who are normally very cool and rational but it brought out the bloodlust in us them to kick Mark Reckless' fat arse.

How much did the Tories overspend by in Rochester then?

I'm told they didn't.

During the last general election campaign I was in contact with some people at CCHQ, they had pulled out of Rochester and Strood three weeks before polling day because they had it in the bag.

So obviously they didn't think the same about South Thanet. Presumably they overspent in Tory-Labour marginal too? Or does my original point stand?

Don't quote me, but I think the only reason the Tories threw so much at Thanet South was the belief UKIP was also throwing law breaking amounts at Thanet South. Which is why UKIP never made a complaint.

As a defence it is pretty shite defence from the blues.

Slackbladder said:

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

Problem with that is that it would allow paper candidates being put up with no funding or work on them at all allowing a few huge huge targeted seats.

That happens now anyway - The Tories lost 18 deposits in 2015, and the Greens over 400 while targeting Brighton, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge.

I'd also guess the Tory candidates in Witney, Maidenhead, NE Hampshire etc. did much local campaigning either.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/blog/2015/06/12/election-2015-lost-deposits

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

Problem with that is that it would allow paper candidates being put up with no funding or work on them at all allowing a few huge huge targeted seats.

That happens now anyway - The Tories lost 18 deposits in 2015, and the Greens over 400 while targeting Brighton, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/blog/2015/06/12/election-2015-lost-deposits

My opinion would be you should be able to spend what you want where you want, just have limits (and harsh penalties) on the types of spending.

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

tlg86 said:

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.

Nonsense on stilts from you.

Dave really wanted a majority above all else, and there was one seat Dave wanted to win more than any other seat and it wasn't Thanet South, it was Rochester and Strood.

I don't know why, but the defection of Mark Reckless really wound up a lot of Tories, Tories who are normally very cool and rational but it brought out the bloodlust in us them to kick Mark Reckless' fat arse.

How much did the Tories overspend by in Rochester then?

I'm told they didn't.

During the last general election campaign I was in contact with some people at CCHQ, they had pulled out of Rochester and Strood three weeks before polling day because they had it in the bag.

So obviously they didn't think the same about South Thanet. Presumably they overspent in Tory-Labour marginal too? Or does my original point stand?

Don't quote me, but I think the only reason the Tories threw so much at Thanet South was the belief UKIP was also throwing law breaking amounts at Thanet South. Which is why UKIP never made a complaint.

As a defence it is pretty shite defence from the blues.

If Ukip broke the law they should be done too.

DecrepitJohnL said:

JosiasJessop said:

tlg86 said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Tory MP faces vote of no confidence over £13.5m loan to football team

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/08/tory-mp-faces-vote-of-no-confidence-over-135m-loan-to-football-team?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

The police investigation also covers inquiries into £36,000 in donations made to Mackintosh’s local Conservative association and people associated with him by Howard Grossman, whose company, 1st Land, was contracted to manage the Sixfields development.

Despite the bulk of the money being paid to Grossman’s company, the firm building the new stand, Buckingham Group, stopped work in early 2015 having not been paid £1.9m they were owed, with 1st Land put into administration.

That does not look good.

It's been developing for some time. And no, it doesn't look good.

It does look like it might develop into a proper, old-fashioned corruption scandal from the 20th Century. Insert reference to popcorn here.

Talking of scandals, it seems like decades since we've had one about the masons.

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

Problem with that is that it would allow paper candidates being put up with no funding or work on them at all allowing a few huge huge targeted seats.

That happens now anyway - The Tories lost 18 deposits in 2015, and the Greens over 400 while targeting Brighton, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/blog/2015/06/12/election-2015-lost-deposits

Yes but your scheme would make it dramatically worse as all spending limits would be transferable. The Greens and UKIP could potentially field 600 candidates each then choose to Spend £6m each in Brighton Pavilion and Clacton respectively. Or the the Arron Banks Party could field 600 candidates then spend £6m in Broxtowe. And so on and so on.

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.

It's not called Northest Ireland.

MaxPB said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rottenborough said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

tlg86 said:

PlatoSaid said:

Christopher Snowden
"You asked me once, Winston, what was in Room 101. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world." https://t.co/Qvr6jjs64E

Blimey!

Exactly. Typical BBC QT right-wing bias -- three Tories and only one Labour (and one from the Will "up him" Self party).

Tell me Mensch isn't out on manoeuvres!!!

To be cynical, it looks like a legitimate way of turning a holiday into a business trip.

Could be an expensive business trip when/if she libels half a dozen people on live TV. Somebody should ask about the state of science journalism.

Slanders.

Libel because it is broadcast which counts as publication, iirc. I suppose all the pb lawyers are off watching the cricket.

Intersecting.

Ministers are considering doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon that would give her the power to hold a second independence referendum — but only after Brexit.

The move has prompted accusations that the Conservatives are “dreaming up ways to thwart a bid for Scottish independence”.

The Scottish government needs to strike an agreement with London, as it did in 2014, to put the question to voters again. Theresa May’s government is looking at making the timing of any second vote a “red line”.

UK ministers would argue that the Brexit deal has to be secured first so that Scots know what they are deciding on in an independence referendum. They will need to know what voting to stay in the UK means in terms of deals with Europe. However, it puts Ms Sturgeon in the unwelcome position of having to fight for independence after the UK has left the EU and therefore potentially without being able to play the card of continuing membership for Scotland.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-deal-would-offer-vote-on-independence-after-brexit-vfbkvg5z3

MaxPB said:

Alistair 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.

It's not called Northest Ireland.

I was going to post that earlier, but realised that northest isn't a word.

Northernest is though

TheScreamingEagles said:

MaxPB said:

Alistair 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.

It's not called Northest Ireland.

I was going to post that earlier, but realised that northest isn't a word.

Northernest is though

Surely northernmost?

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......

Northern Powerhouse.

All 3 "major" parties appear to have acted improperly. (well, 2 and the lib dems).

A pox on all their houses

YellowSubmarine said:

@FF43 I agree but after last night's vote all hope is gone. We're now in a gargantuan socioeconomic experiment with no agreement on which of several hypotheses we're testing.

So if all hope is gone, will the Remoaners now shut up?

Odds on that?

On topic if charges are brought unfortunately for Mrs May she cannot blame the excess of the ancien régime, as her chief of staff has been implicated in the alleged shenanigans in Thanet South

@TheScreamingEagles It's a hell of a hand grenade to throw into the Brexit negotiations. Even if delayed and subsequently not used granting a Section 30 Order would trigger a long #indyref2 campaign in all but name. And Cui Bono ? Arguably the Tories in Scotland in that their USP would have greater salience. Arguably Soft Brexiters because they'd have Secession to scare the children with. Arguably the EU negotiating team as a real crap deal could tip the UK into break up. Who knows ? Currency speculators certainly.

Some clever tactics going on here. Fine the others then go for the government. The question that occurs to me though is how legitimate are decisions made by Parliament since the German if they were made thanks to MPs who were not legitimately elected?

Another one for the Supreme Court?

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

YellowSubmarine said:

Sandpit said:

Slackbladder said:

Sandpit said:

I wonder if the solution to the spending limits isn't to have a combined spending limit of say £100k per candidate standing, so £6m over the election period - then leave it up to the parties to allocate this spending as they see fit, whether to phone banks, national campaigning, social media, battle buses, mail shots, door knockers etc.

This would allow for marginal targeting and national campaigning, while getting rid of anomalies such as the PM visiting but not being allowed to say vote for the local candidate, or a bus full of students having to stay 20 miles away to avoid hotel bills in a particular constituency.

If the EC can get the value right, they will even be able to *reduce* the overall spending limits therefore making elections cheaper to contest while allowing local independents more spending if they wish.

Reinforce this with draconian penalties for overspending and have named party officials personally responsible, who can be barred from office by a judge for any egrarious breaches of spending limits.

Problem with that is that it would allow paper candidates being put up with no funding or work on them at all allowing a few huge huge targeted seats.

That happens now anyway - The Tories lost 18 deposits in 2015, and the Greens over 400 while targeting Brighton, Bristol, Oxford and Cambridge.

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/blog/2015/06/12/election-2015-lost-deposits

Yes but your scheme would make it dramatically worse as all spending limits would be transferable. The Greens and UKIP could potentially field 600 candidates each then choose to Spend £6m each in Brighton Pavilion and Clacton respectively. Or the the Arron Banks Party could field 600 candidates then spend £6m in Broxtowe. And so on and so on.

Possibly, but it's got to be better than all the current complexities which have seeming got everyone in trouble. It's really not possible to spend £6m in only a handful of constituencies at a GE. I also quite like the idea of allowing well funded local independent candidates.

Out of interest, do we know what did the LDs spent in Richmond last week? I can't imagine it's possible to spend much more than that in one place in a local campaign, if the reports of dozens of leaflets and hundreds of activists are to be believed.

Activists are effectively free, especially in London. It's not like there's a bus being laid on to take them to Richmond. There'll have turned up, and the cost of their shoe leather* will be born personally.

* Yes, I realise that LibDems probably have some godawful synthetic soles on their shoes

Shoes?

England about to collapse like Carthage at Zama.

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Intersecting.

Ministers are considering doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon that would give her the power to hold a second independence referendum — but only after Brexit.

The move has prompted accusations that the Conservatives are “dreaming up ways to thwart a bid for Scottish independence”.

The Scottish government needs to strike an agreement with London, as it did in 2014, to put the question to voters again. Theresa May’s government is looking at making the timing of any second vote a “red line”.

UK ministers would argue that the Brexit deal has to be secured first so that Scots know what they are deciding on in an independence referendum. They will need to know what voting to stay in the UK means in terms of deals with Europe. However, it puts Ms Sturgeon in the unwelcome position of having to fight for independence after the UK has left the EU and therefore potentially without being able to play the card of continuing membership for Scotland.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-deal-would-offer-vote-on-independence-after-brexit-vfbkvg5z3

It's part of the deal to get the Scottish government on board with Brexit. There will be cash bungs as well. Brexit will see a huge increase in patronage with money also going to northern Ireland, big businesses and foreign governments.

The other point is that the Conservative and Unionist Party is more concerned with cobbling something together for Brexit than preserving the Union right now.

Dave was right again.

To paraphrase Emperor Kahless The Unforgettable, 'Destroying a Union to leave another Union is no victory'

TheScreamingEagles said:

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Intersecting.

Ministers are considering doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon that would give her the power to hold a second independence referendum — but only after Brexit.

The move has prompted accusations that the Conservatives are “dreaming up ways to thwart a bid for Scottish independence”.

The Scottish government needs to strike an agreement with London, as it did in 2014, to put the question to voters again. Theresa May’s government is looking at making the timing of any second vote a “red line”.

UK ministers would argue that the Brexit deal has to be secured first so that Scots know what they are deciding on in an independence referendum. They will need to know what voting to stay in the UK means in terms of deals with Europe. However, it puts Ms Sturgeon in the unwelcome position of having to fight for independence after the UK has left the EU and therefore potentially without being able to play the card of continuing membership for Scotland.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-deal-would-offer-vote-on-independence-after-brexit-vfbkvg5z3

It's part of the deal to get the Scottish government on board with Brexit. There will be cash bungs as well. Brexit will see a huge increase in patronage with money also going to northern Ireland, big businesses and foreign governments.

The other point is that the Conservative and Unionist Party is more concerned with cobbling something together for Brexit than preserving the Union right now.

Dave was right again.

To paraphrase Emperor Kahless The Unforgettable, 'Destroying a Union to leave another Union is no victory'

Ukip's future is England and I think Paul Nuttall gets this.

Morning all

When I was an Agent some 30 years ago, it seemed like a legal minefield but compared with today it's simple. How do you (or indeed can you) differentiate between "local" and "national" expenditure in an age of social media ?

All the cases brought against all the parties show the current system of electoral expenses and funding to be wholly unfit for purpose and in dire need of some radical re-thinking.

I start with there being two credible positions - one is to have no expense limit at all, if the parties have the money, let them spend it where and how they like (it's their money after all). If a party wants to spend 1p in one constituency and £1 million in another what's wrong with that ?

The other credible position is to have no spending at all - parties have to campaign on an entirely voluntary basis. People and firms have to voluntarily give up time and money to work for a party. If a candidate can get a hundred volunteers and companies willing to give up their time to print leaflets or run phone banks or run social media campaigns, no problem.

I rather like the latter as an idea - the former allows for enough money to be spent to buy an election though as recent events have shown, spending a lot of money is no guarantee of success.

The current system invites abuse and no party is immune from that.

Rofl:

Telegraph suggests replacing Ranieri with Big Sam !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2016/12/07/bob-bradley-slaven-bilic-alan-pardew-manager-risk-could-replace/

Floater said:

All 3 "major" parties appear to have acted improperly. (well, 2 and the lib dems).

A pox on all their houses

In case UKIP are feeling left out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-32962365
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-35813916
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/491024/Former-UKIP-MEP-charged-money-laundering
https://www.rt.com/uk/219967-ukip-court-election-fraud/
http://www.markpack.org.uk/132557/ukip-parliamentary-candidate-convicted-of-electoral-fraud/

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Intersecting.

Ministers are considering doing a deal with Nicola Sturgeon that would give her the power to hold a second independence referendum — but only after Brexit.

The move has prompted accusations that the Conservatives are “dreaming up ways to thwart a bid for Scottish independence”.

The Scottish government needs to strike an agreement with London, as it did in 2014, to put the question to voters again. Theresa May’s government is looking at making the timing of any second vote a “red line”.

UK ministers would argue that the Brexit deal has to be secured first so that Scots know what they are deciding on in an independence referendum. They will need to know what voting to stay in the UK means in terms of deals with Europe. However, it puts Ms Sturgeon in the unwelcome position of having to fight for independence after the UK has left the EU and therefore potentially without being able to play the card of continuing membership for Scotland.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/scotland-deal-would-offer-vote-on-independence-after-brexit-vfbkvg5z3

It's part of the deal to get the Scottish government on board with Brexit. There will be cash bungs as well. Brexit will see a huge increase in patronage with money also going to northern Ireland, big businesses and foreign governments.

The other point is that the Conservative and Unionist Party is more concerned with cobbling something together for Brexit than preserving the Union right now.

Dave was right again.

To paraphrase Emperor Kahless The Unforgettable, 'Destroying a Union to leave another Union is no victory'

Unless you're not that bothered about either union. Since we seem incapable of coming up with real solutions to the West Lothian Question it seems appropriate.

All good Tories should be bothered about the Union, our party name kinda gives you an idea.

The Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain and Northern Ireland