Why you cannot embargo opinion polls
December 2nd, 2007
It must be assumed that market sensitive information will seep out
In many ways I was greatly relieved last night that I was not given an advanced copy of the Sky News YouGov poll of Lib Dem party members on the Huhne-Clegg battle. For if I had had it then, like Iain Dale, I would have felt compelled to hang onto to the information until the stated time, 10pm, and not make available information that was highly market sensitive.
After publishing the story at 4.35pm my next action was to get as much money as I could on Nick Clegg because my reading of the poll was that the 56%-44% margin meant that the younger contender was now a near certainty. The £700 I placed with PaddyPower at 2/7 looks like the easiest way of picking up an almost risk-free £200 profit that there’s been for months.
Throughout yesterday, before the poll came out, several people commented on the main thread that the Clegg price on Betfair was tightening. My assumption is that others who had seen embargoed copies of the SkyNews story had jumped in to get their cash on as well.
As regular visitors here will know I bet quite heavily on political outcomes and as soon as a new poll enters the public domain I assess it and adjust my positions accordingly. Thus on Monday evening, as news of the ComRes 13% Labour deficit was emerging, I bought Tory seats on the general election spread betting markets.
-
Which brings me to my general point - pollsters and media organisations should not place embargoes on polls - information, to use the famous NuLab phrase should be available “for the many and not the few”.
This will become increasingly important as we get closer to the general election when the amounts being gambled are likely to soar.
One encouraging development is that the main media organisations are now making their polling information available on the evening before, sometimes as early as 6.30 pm.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
What it also means is that news organisations will need to make rules to stop their journalists betting on the basis of embargoed information (as with buying shares). Perhaps the Gambling Commission should look at this.
OT-ish (already) — the many/few New Labour slogan looked like it came directly from Star Trek, and many assumed it was an in-joke amongst sci-fi fans working for Peter Mandelson. Is the real story of this slogan known?
Embargoes must surely stay. Otherwise, why should any newspaper commission a poll if its findings are released in time for full analysis in the evening news bulletins and the first editions of all its rival papers?
The system relies on the integrity of those possessing the data (as well as the competence of certain bloggers) but on the whole it has worked well with market-sensitive financial data for years.
In the city it is called insider dealing
And now the loop is complete: the link in the chain between Cash for Honours, building developers needing planning permission from Labour councils, and the recently exposed criminal donations to Labour’s coffers.
“Despite the increasing pressure on Alexander, Scotland on Sunday can also reveal that she is being urged by Gordon Brown not to resign, fearing such a move would trigger a “domino effect” of resignations across the UK…. But last night there was renewed pressure from within her own ranks amid signs civil war was breaking out in the Scottish Labour Party over the scandal.”
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1883512007
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1874620.0.0.php
The Scottish press is doing a sterling job here, but why, may I ask, has the BBC only been reporting (little bits) of this story in its Scotland section only? Surely this story warrants UK-wide reporting? Yet more evidence, if any were needed, that Labour’s will runs strong at the very heart of the BBC.
Honourable exceptions do exist, eg. it was the BBC’s Brian Taylor who asked the vital question:
- “Who was the “regulated donee” under law?”
- Answer: “Wendy Alexander”
Whoops-a-daisy…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/
2 - Do they use embargoes in the financial world. Or do they just tell everyone at the same time?
They tell everyone after their friends so they can make a killing.
And do you have a serious answer?
That Ipsos-MORIS poll from a couple of days ago does not have a breakdown for Scotland (unlike ComRes, YouGov etc), however we can still extract an interesting finding. Ipsos-MORI found combined support for the Scottish National Party + Plaid Cymru to be 5% of the Great Britain total (ie. excluding Northern Ireland, which is never included in these voting intention surveys).
Now, at the last UK general election, the combined SNP + PC total was only 2.1% of the UK-wide vote (1.5% + 0.6% respectively). This backs up all the recent evidence from YouGov and ComRes that the SNP vote has more than doubled from two years ago. Hold on to yer breeks Gordy…
John Looney: I was very interested in your idea of combining the 2005 + 2007 raw votes to see what seats were really realistic SNP gains at the next UK general election. I did not have time to respond 2 days ago. However, I was wondering whether you had actually done the necessary number-crunching?
7. In the US Corporation I worked for i) they told everyone outside at the same time - usually comfortably before market opening (great thing, the internet) and ii) anyone inside who did know - or might know - was banned from trading stock in the period leading up to the announcement. I suspect both aspects need to be looked at wrt polls/betting.
In the city, the main financial news that will affect markets, such as the annual results, is released to everyone together, typically at 7am, before the stock exchange is open.
An embargo is common for non-price sensitive news, such as product releases, etc.
Here, I think here there needs to be a distinction between an embargo, such as this case where selected people knew the result, but were asked to keep it under cover until 10pm, and people inside the polling organisation and news organisation knowing the answer, the latter being inevitable if newspapers and other media outlets are to sponsor polls.
In this instance, I guess the intention was to gain publicity for Sky News. They would want publicity in the Sunday papers, which have early deadlines, so needed to tell them the results of the poll by late Saturday afternoon. Being purely a 24 hour news channel, it probably wouldn’t have hurt them to release the news earlier, but it is easy to imagine many circumstances when polls would not have been commissioned if the results could not have been held back.
Take last weeks Sunday Telegraph poll, which used the same fieldwork as the previous Guardian poll. Would that have been commissioned if other newspapers could have published the results on the Friday?
5,7,9 re embargoed financial information — as CarlottaVance says, in the City they tell everyone at the same time. But they use embargoes to do this: the news has to be in place (and embargoed) in order that it can be released at the designated time.
With betting, because insider dealing is (in at least some cases) a new offence, the mechanisms are not yet in place to prevent it. This needs to be fixed.
And as Icarus @ 6 says, insider dealing, though illegal, is not unheard of.
O/T Average of the last polls of the 5 main pollsters (ICM, Yougov, Ipsos-MORI, ComRes and Populus)
Con 40.2
Lab 31.6
LD 16.8
Predicted outcome by Baxter :
C 321 L 263 LD 35
Predicted outcome by Anthony Wells
C 319 L 264 LD 37
Average:
C 320 L 263.5 LD 36
The Populus poll is quite old. If there is a new one this average will give us a more acurate picture.
I think the Sunday papers are OK for Lab in that there’s no new scandal.
However, the Sunday Times is the tough one: Abrahams saying 10 Lab figures knew. He is not going quietly. This one will be a slow burner. He also solicited a peerage.
Why doesn’t Brown sack Mendelsohn?
5,7,9 re embargoed financial information — as CarlottaVance says, in the City they tell everyone at the same time. But they use embargoes to do this: the news has to be in place (and embargoed) in order that it can be released at the designated time.
Presumably it is only “embargoed” within the organisation though, where the information’s distribution can be carefully tracked and leaks quickly identified. That’s clearly different to passing it out to members of the press or other interested parties, and just asking them to keep a lid on it.
To be honest though in this day of instant communication, i don’t understand why Sky felt the need to tell people at 6.30 (or whenever) if they didn’t want it releasing until 10pm.
He also solicited a peerage
But he didn’t get one.
Stuart. I’m puzzled how Sean Connery can donate to the SNP being a resident of the Bahamas when Wendy Alexander cant take a donation from someone in the Channel Islands. Do you know?
I think Sean Connery has an exemption under the Act
16.
No “puzzling” required. The law is crystal clear, despite Labour’s attempts to muddy it. Sean Connery is a registered voter in the United Kingdom and is a registered UK taxpayer.
Roger, are you suggesting that Sean Connery’s donations are criminal, or are you just trying to spread Labour’s muck? Wendy Alexander (the “regulated donee” under law) has publicly admitted that the Green donations were illegal. She even wrote a personal letter of thanks to Mr Green.
12. Well done Chris! It might not have the fizz of Jacks ARSE but I’m sure it’s just as accurate
Actually sensitive economic data is released to financial journalists some minutes before it is generally released - so they can write up their stories ready to be published instantly at the time the info becomes public.
Those in authority (eg members of the MPC) would have some rough idea of how say data was looking if the public date was in the next couple of days.
In America they used to lock the journalists in a room - I don’t know if this is still the case.
He is NOT a UK taxpayer.
18 so why hasnt she been arrested?
I should have said that penalties for early release are draconian. However if you pay for data from a privzte survey (there are lots which are widely watched eg University of Michigan consumer confidence in the US) you get the results early and the chance to profit from them.
Seriously, Labour supporters continue to struggle with this basic distinction. They have a whole list of things which they think should be disallowed, and are unable to distinguish between these and things which are disallowed. Perhaps if they stopped to think for two minutes they would realise that, having written the law themselves, there was probably a good reason why the former were not disallowed - because the Labour Party relies on them heavily for money like everyone else!
Hence we here them complaining about non-doms (Mittal, Lord Paul etc), other individual rich men having large influence over parties due to the large amount of money they donate (the above, Lord Sainsbury etc), “anonymous” unincorporated associations (Muslim Friends of Labour) etc etc.
alex@14 — a lot of sensitive financial information will go to the press and/or news agencies and financial data providers like Reuters and Bloomberg (and even to externally hosted web sites) ahead of time, with an embargo.
Most of this is for practical reasons: to release information on time, it has to be pre-processed, digested and put in place beforehand. (Often printed too.) Think of the budget: they can’t write the red book as the Chancellor speaks, and Brown wasn’t making it up as he went along.
Stuart. No I wasn’t trying to muddy the water but it’s been puzzling me. I was involved in a commercial with him in Monaco in 2003 so I know a little bit about him and where he lives and why. Like most people I didn’t know anything about the rules on donations but when I heard Wendy Alexander was in trouble for accepting money from Jersey I couldn;t understand how this donation differed from Connery’s?
21. Is that another “Rogerfact”?
According to the man himself, when interviewed by Jasper Gerard for The Times: ““I pay more tax in the UK than most MPs put together.”
Are you saying that Mr Connery is a liar? If so, please provide some evidence, not the spoutings of your wandering imagination.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article740029.ece
The Wendy Alexander/Scotland thing seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup, but then it’s a small country…
25 - Granted. I guess the difference is that in the Financial World they have the advantage that there is a limit to how much money can be made from out-of-hours profiting.
Still don’t understand why we need embargoes on things like opinion polls, and certainly not embargoes of anything other than a few minutes.
26. The difference is that Paul Green is not a registered elector in the United Kingdom, nor a UK taxpayer. Mr Connery is. You need to be both in order to donate money to a political party registered in the United Kingdom.
Changed my mind a bit - i guess it’s for the newspapers morning deadlines.
22. sp - “so why hasnt she been arrested?”
That is a very good question. And one which Strathclyde Police have, thus far, failed to answer satisfactorily.
32 I find it increasingly annoying that members of the public get arrested for trivial matters yet public figures who have clearly broken the law seemed to be immune. im no lawyer but when the PM of the day admits that laws have been broken you would at least expect the police to act. the story in scotland seems clear cut yet the police do nothing, why is this?
29 - not really. Most markets trade out of hours now and foreign exchange is almost completely 24 hour.
alex @ 24 — it is this distinction between what is legal and what is reasonable that may mitigate the damage to Labour. I’ve heard a number of non-political types express the view that no-one seems to have done anything wrong: the sums are trivial and do not look like bribes.
If a quid pro quo is uncovered, things will very likely change, but until then people do not seem unduly bothered that some rich fruitcake wants to give money away anonymously in a political version of Secret Millionaire. Just as no-one (other than activists) cares about Ashcroft on the other side. Or even Sean Connery.
Come to think of it, maybe an official body should be set up to filter large, anonymous donations to political parties. It should be easy enough to spread donations out over time so no-one can verify a would-be peer’s claim to have given the money.
Mike’s point is, of course, one more reason why opinion polls should not be banned in the period before an election.
That is, the publication of polls, not taking them, which cannot be banned; it would be an even more undemocratic and dictatorial thing to do to ban asking people their views.
Bob Worcester has often said that polling companies would make more money if there was a ban; they’d still take them and the results would be restricted, indeed ‘privileged’, and hence more valuable.
27. Stuart. No it is not a ‘Rogerfact’! It is a FACT which I could give better and further particulars on but for various reasons it would be indiscreet so I wont on here. There are strict limits on the number of days he can spend in the UK.
27. What you neglect to quote from the article:
“Connery, 75, is leading the fight for Scottish independence as tenaciously as one can from a golf course in the Caribbean…Connery, mildly more reclusive than Garbo these days hiding in the Bahamas”
So he is not resident in the UK. What he does do is pay tax on income arising in the UK (presumably from his film work & commercials) - which may well be deducted at source:
“he erupts, giving a long speech about tax on residuals”
The whole mess needs to be sorted out - donations only from the resident, ordinarily resident & domiciled.
37. The information (by implication) is present in the article - Connery will be subject to the ‘90 day’ rule - which limits the number of days you can spend in the UK (an average of 90 - no more than 360 in a 4 year period) without becoming tax resident and therefore liable to tax on your world wide income (unless you are a non-dom…..). This will get tougher from April 6, 2008, when days of arrival and departure (currently ignored) will count towards your total. The ‘Monaco Millionaire’ set are supposed to arrive on Monday (ignored) and leave on Thursday (ignored) - so that counts as 2 days, currently. From next April it will count as 4.
27. PS I’ve just read the Times article and he doesn’t say he pay’s tax here at all! He hints that he pays tax on residuals which is presumably on his Bond films from twenty odd years ago. That must be all of .05% of his earnings!!
Meanwhile on Guido’s
Normal service has returned, Guido has got the crown back from Iain, with 305,624 unique visitors making 423,598 page loads last month. More people visited Guido than any other comparable political website.
Surely a whopper there?
re 41 that being said the story about Harriet’s attempt to steal the Hefferlump’s umbrella is a goof one
re 42 oops that should be …a good one
38. He doesn’t pay tax in the UK on commercials. He insists they are shot elsewhere!
Interesting topic, Mike.
May I draw a comparison with what happens in racing, where there are very similar issues?
It is accepted that it is practically impossible to keep a secret and so the Authorities require Trainers to put relevant betting information into the public domain as soon as possible. Some are better at doing this than others and occasionally Trainers are reprimanded or fined for ‘failure to disclose.’
Punters get to know which Trainers are prompt, free and open with their information - Paul Nicholls sets a high standard in this respect - and which tend to be a bit more covert and evasive. Nobody expects everybody to be as pure and white as the driven snow but certain standards are nevertheless maintained and the astute punter can generally build into his calculations the various imponderables arising from ‘inside knowledge’.
It ain’t perfect, but it works and despite occasional problems, it’s widely accept as fair enough and about as good as you are likely to get in a world populated by human beings.
This contrasts enormously with the City, where there are strict rules and timeframes within which one can and can’t do certain things and everybody cheats likes crazy. It could definitely learn from racing, which is infinitely more honest, as well as more workable.
45 - Peter i know you’ve got to defend your sport, but…
Roger, the plain fact is that Sean Connery’s donations to the Scottish National Party are not only legal, they have been widely and fully published and publicised. Not only clean, but seen to be clean.
By contrast, Paul Green’s donations to Glasgow South CLP (endangering Tom Harris MP, parliamentary under-secretary at the Department for Transport) and to Wendy Alexander’s leadership campaign were not only illegal, but subject to deliberate concealment, blatant lies and obfuscation. It is comparing the SNP’s clear dawn daylight to the Labour Party’s murky, dying dusk. Mind and don’t let the door bang you too hard on the arse on your way out.
Hazel Blears opts for the “I was in office with the lights out, Dromey defence”.
On BBC1 now AM show
Hazel Blears former Labour party Chair “absolutely no knowledge of party donations”.
Marr “That’s a bit strange not knowing about large donations, do you know who the person was (handling them).”
Hazel “No.”
The Tory and SNP line on funding seems to be “I don’t give a toss if it’s moral or not, it just happens to be within the law.”
Big, big overhaul of funding needed!
The poison dwarf thinks all this drip drip drip in the press is bad for all the parties.
Can not for the life of me recall any labour mp saying this when they were accusing the tories of sleaze and eating babies 12 years ago.
Stuart at 47. I’m sure Sean Connery’s donations have been scrutinized and I know him to be an upright citizen. None of this alters my original question to which I was hoping to get a simple answer because I can’t understand it. For the record I’ll ask again; What is the difference between WA receiving money from a resident of Jersey and AS receiving it from a resident of the Bahamas?
49 so it ok to break the law?
46 I don’t have to defend anything, Alex. I call it as I see it.
I’ve spent a lot of my life at the track and in the City and am absolutely in no doubt as to which is the more honest and has the more effective regulation.
With price sensitive information in regulated financial markets the information is held very tightly before release but clearly some people need to know and that number rises as the time gets close to release as press releases are drafted and sent to for example the stock exchange for release . Although those who come into possession of the information become insiders and if they pass that information on or act on it by dealing they commit a criminal offence - and not knowing the law is not an excuse
50 and Marr let her get away with this line. Not a single question that explored the illegality of Labour’s actions. She was allowed to constantly peddle the lie that all the other parties have the same problem as Labour.
I think the sight of people who wrote the law saying the law is a mess and needs radical reform because they can’t understand is beyond parody.
It’s quite simple - the only people who have been shown to be breaking the law are the Labour party. With people like Harriet ‘unbrella’ Harman running the party it’s not surprising.
re 44. So much for client confidentiality from Roger.
Do those you work with know that you might reveal their personal details here?
52 - certainly not! I don’t know how can have read that into what I said.
56. An uncharacteristically unfair comment.
57 apologies, but it seems everyone is trying to focus on discreditinglegal donations while nothing is being done about clearly ilegal donations
56 Perhaps Roger did say more than he intended, but his question was a good one.
And I am still no clearer on the answer.
Interesting tack from Cameron on Marr ‘all parties make mistakes’ - a lot less strident than PMQs…..wonder what he’s been told - or if he’s just being smart(er). Also no clear answer on Ashcroft’s domicile - which just leaves the uncharitable drawing uncharitable conclusions
56. Where commercials get shot is a matter of public record - especially the expensive ones Connery appears in. However, if they are aired in the UK, Connery will be subject to tax on his repeat fees.
Betting markets are not regulated by the FSA, so people can legally do pretty much what they want. My view is that betting markets are so small that the law of ‘ceteris paribus’ should apply. We’re talking a few million pounds in total rather than the trillions that slosh around the financial system each day so I think that the amounts people could make by ‘insider trading’ in political betting markets are so small that relying on people’s honour is the best solution.
62 - have you heard of the Gambling Act, Matthew?
49. You work to the laws in place - In this case, put in place by Labour. I see no good reason for any party to disadvantage itself by placing so-called ‘moral’ obstacles in the way when the law doesn’t do so. Isn’t one of the purposes of the law to set a standard on morality in the subject?
I would welcome improvements in the legislation on party funding in certain respects - I do believe there should be a cap on both individual and corporate donations, for example. What I wouldn’t accept is if Labour uses this present crisis as an excuse to raid the taxpayers’ purse to bail itself out of a financial hole.
WRT Roger’s point, this is typical of Labour’s current line of attack: other parties have had problems therefore everyone’s as bad but we’ll do something about it. Well yes, other parties have had problems, but it’s only Labour that has had two police enquiries into its funding activities. There seems to me a qualitative difference between activity which exploits loopholes within the law (laws put in place by a different party, at that), and activity which is criminal.
62 - agreed. I knew months before that Charles Kennedy’s situation was so bad that he would be driven out by summer 2006. I wish I had bet.
I’m sure Sean Connery isn’t too worried by the ravings of a demented nobody like Roger.
As any lingering credibility that remained fragments into dust and he becomes increasingly a figure of fun and ridicule for the press, Gordon retreats further into the bizarre fantasy world inside his own head. Two weeks ago he responded to the emerging Labour sleaze crisis by announcing he would ban plastic shopping bags. This weekend, as the Sunday papers devote whole pages to taking the p*ss out of him, Gormless Gordon responds by declaring he will ban the use of sun-tanning machines for the under 18’s.
Hasn’t this nonsense gone on long enough? Surely it’s time for Jack Straw to summon the men in white coats?
61. Celebrities don’t normally work on repeats it’s invariably a buy-out which is one of the reasons they can prove ecconomical ironically.
56. I have said nothing on here that is not in the public domain even if some SNP supporters don’t happen to know the information and Sean Connery was not my client but the story is too long to go into
Mike,
A number of Lib Dem sites had released the date before you did so all you reported was something in the public domain.
61 - he’s being smarter. He probably realises he went a bit far in PMQs last week, and also that permanent damage has now been done to Labour and it doesn’t do the Conservatives any good to stay in the gutter.
Luckily for the Conservative Party, the leadership do not seem to be in agreement with the crass view expressed on here last night that Labour are so damaged that the Tories should keep slinging any mud they can, on the grounds that it will all stick. Mud fights are fun, but you still have a washing bill at the end of it.
51
The Electoral Commission guide says:
3.6 Parties can only accept a donation or loan (as defined in Chapter 2, ‘Defining parties, donations and regulated transactions’) with a value of more than £200 if the donor or lender is in the following categories:
• an individual registered in a UK electoral register (including bequests)
• a UK registered company which is incorporated within the EU and carries on
business in the UK 10
• a Great Britain registered political party
• a UK registered trade union
• a UK registered building society
• a UK registered limited liability partnership that carries on business in the UK
• a UK registered friendly society
• a UK based unincorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK (Section 54(2))
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/files/dms/DonationsloansguidanceFinal_27536-17297__E__N__S__W__.pdf
A somewhat more sober article on the YouGov poll in Sky News
Nick Clegg looks set to be the next leader of the Liberal Democrats according to a new YouGov survey of party members.
Chris Huhn and Nick CleggBut the exclusive poll, commissioned by Sky News, leaves the way open for a late surge by rival contender Chris Huhne.
Though Mr Clegg is ahead by 56 to 44 among all those naming a candidate, half the members have not yet voted. Partly because such a sizeable number of them have yet to make up their minds.
Much depends on whether Chris Huhne can muster a late surge, it all boils down to the “undecideds”.
Best of luck with your wager Mike and enjoy the day one and all.
I have to do further research on Northern Wreck to ensure it remains in the public eye.
51. What is the difference between WA receiving money from a resident of Jersey and AS receiving it from a resident of the Bahamas?
I assume it is that the Bahamas resident is ‘an individual registered on a UK electoral register’, whereas the Jersey resident is not - though I don’t know the facts in either case. From the way the regulations are drawn up (page 10):
http://tinyurl.com/297xgj
This differs from the requirement for UK businesses, which requires that it ‘carries on business in the UK’.
The only requirement for an individual is that you are on a UK electoral register - residence, domicile, none of that relevant. So there is nothing wrong with taking donations from residents of Jersey, Monaco or Timbukto - as long as they are on the UK Electoral register thats fine. How Connery, a non-resident for many years has stayed on the Electoral register is beyond me - I thought you dropped off the electoral roll as an overseas elector after 15 years……
70 Drip… drip…. News of a discrediting nature is far more damaging than putting the boot in.IMHO
70 Alex.
I can see your point but I didn’t notice Campbell, Mandelson and others holding back when the Major government was on the rack over sleaze back in the nineties.
They went for the jugular every day, month in month out until Major (who was never personally invovled in any sleaze, unlike Brown) was a busted flush.
Obviously it is a tactic that requires skill and some subtlety, and has to be done alonside the media, but an opposition’s job is to attack the government when it is warranted and attacking the increasingly dishonest, sleazy, and incompetent Brown and his crew is more than warranted.
Go get ‘em Grayling!
62.
Yes, but it doesn’t mention ‘inside trading’ etc. The Gambling Comission have the power to make rules against it but they, wisely IMHO choose not to. Of course gambling covertly on the basis on inside information would be highly unethical, but it’s not at the moment illegal.
Although it looks like Wendy Alexander will be forced out I have to say that is too heavy a price to pay for £950 handled by her helpers.
On the Connery matter it is good that he is paying some tax here. Probably more than most of us. It is a sign of how desperate the Labour apologists are getting that they are trying to smear everyone.
I agree with one poster that we need a limit of £5,000 per entity per year.
It would strengthen Labour if they had direct relationships with the union members, possibly adding millions more members to their ranks.
77. Yes - I wonder why Labour hasn’t opted for an individual-based system, with all the benefits it would bring, before :)?
77 - “It would strengthen Labour if they had direct relationships with the union members, possibly adding millions more members to their ranks. ”
Of course the converse may be true. And turkeys don’t vote for CHristmas.
Cameron on Marr - Why wasn’t he asked do you know about all the major donors to the Conservative Party - say over £50,000 - are yours all OK.
80 - coz this months the BBC are only out to bash Labour. So it is not relevant.
Is Clegg a certainty. How can Dale read it the opposite to this and say Huhne is still in it.
BTW If 40-30-23 occurs next May what happens to Labour Councils do any more totemic ones topple over to the Lib Dems in the North as well as their eradication South of Watling street by the Conservatives
73 CV Your last point is a good one.
Again the EC says: If you are a British citizen living abroad, you can apply to be an overseas voter. As long as you were registered to vote in the UK within the last 15 years, you can register to vote from overseas. If you were too young to register when you left the UK, your parent or guardian must have been registered.
82 - when you say 40-30-23 do you really mean 30 for Labour? No chance! Labour may get 25%. When did Labour last get 30% in the local elections?
Tory 40, LD 30, Lab 23 - now that is possible…
75 - Yes and some of them with the benefits of hindsight are regretting the approach that they took in the nineties.
I notice Cameron has gone back to wearing a tie - on Sunday should be casual surely?
Clegg v Huhne on Sky now.
YouGov poll:
Already voted: Clegg 58, Huhne 42
Yet to vote: Clegg 31, Huhne 26, Undecided 44
On the matter if the Yougov poll I would be intrigued to know if any Huhne supporters who blog here participated. I noted 3 or 4 Clegg supporters said they had been called by Yougov but none on the other side. Also I am surprised Mike thinks Clegg has won - all it needs is the undecideds to split 60/40 Huhne.
On the matter if the Yougov poll I would be intrigued to know if any Huhne supporters who blog here participated. I noted 3 or 4 Clegg supporters said they had been called by Yougov but none on the other side. Also I am surprised Mike thinks Clegg has won - all it needs is the undecideds to split 60/40 Huhne.
On the matter if the Yougov poll I would be intrigued to know if any Huhne supporters who blog here participated. I noted 3 or 4 Clegg supporters said they had been called by Yougov but none on the other side. Also I am surprised Mike thinks Clegg has won - all it needs is the undecideds to split 60/40 Huhne.
Choice for Labour
10m Union people handing over £15m a year but controlled by the union heads.
1m more members handing over £15 a head via direct debit worth £15m a year but without union control. Labour gets their contact details and can access a large base of support for its deliveries and election support.
Icarus The more certain of getting the top job a politician is the softer his approach and the smarter and more ’statesman’ is the dress. Look at Blair 96 and 97.
The henchmen are left with the hatchet, hacking away furiously. But the boss, no way.
91 I bet Labours membership lists are encrypted……
80 I understand from the Telegraph that any donation to the tories is individually approved by a nominated officer of the party who signs to the effect that the donation is legal.
It is one of the reasons the party is relaxed about its own funding position because it has nothing to hide. All donations over a certain size are the clear responsibility of a named perosn who takes individual responsibility for checking and approving it.
In other words the tories are organised and have proper processes in place and Labour HQ are either incomptetent idiots or criminally minded idiots. Either way, as Matthew Parris says ‘they can’t even organise a cover-up’.
77: If she hadn’t lied about it wee Wendy wouldn’t be in the trouble she is.
Scrap my post at 63 - i think the distinction in the Gambling Act is where an individual has an influence over the outcome ie. cheating.
I spoke to my milkman on Saturday morning - a lifelong labour supporter. He said he was sick to death of Gordon Brown and was going to vote Tory ! [This story is embargoed until I can tell my taxi driver at 5 o'clock this evening]
84 Yes but in National opinion Polls only not in the actual Locals where your numbers look wholly plausible. Are there any more totemic Labour Councils that could be hit. I think after this the Lib Dems must be have a good shout in Cardiff and Sheffield certainly
I think I agree with Hazel Blears’s major point, which was that the important things are governing the country effectively, and getting the issue of funding sorted out. Various posters have tried to bring out the idea (I paraphrase) that the law is an ass/arse, and there are things that are legal that ought not to be and vice-versa. Unfortunately for these people we have to work with the law as itis not as we might like it to be (which incidentally is probably different for every one of us). I welcome GB’s quick admission of illegeality, but simply cannot understand why he hasn’t demanded Mendelsohn’s resignation - as he is irrevocably compromised by this whole situation. It will simply look more and more sleazy if he stays till an investigation most likely makes his position untenable. We can all see that Abrahams hates his guts, and who on earth’s interests he thinks he is serving by keeping on publishing (certainly not his own), who knows.
It infuriates me that the Tories including Cameron on Marr, seem to be in denial about Ashcroft, and it strikes me that senior Tories should insist his domicile position be clarified more than it so far appears to have been. Frankly, they are letting the Labour side off the hook by doing this.
88. Goupillon. The undecideds would need to split 78/22 in Huhne’s favour by my calculations if you assume 50 per cent have already voted, using the figures at 87.
Goupillon
Certainly not polled in this household!
Just a question - if Lord Ashcroft’s “domicility position” was clarified and it turned out he was non-domiciled for tax purposes, what would you say then?
48.
“Hazel Blears opts for the “I was in office with the lights out, Dromey defence”.”
No scandal there then -one MP that you can be sure nobody was with her!
88.89.90. I think you are assuming 100% turnout, though. If half have already voted, and turnout is as usual, then only about 1/3 of the ‘yet to vote’ are likely to vote.
97. fr. Is that true about your milkman? I know alex gives no credence to anecdotal vignettes. Personally, if I trust the poster, I find them interesting and they can be quite illuminating. Most people I talk to think Brown is shambolic.
93.
“wee Wendy wouldn’t be in the trouble she is. ”
Less of the ‘wee’ surely. Those chins are quite Teatheresque.
100. St John - thank you I was not aware of the “still to vote” figures until now.
The NoW has the real killer story:
Dodgy donor dozed on bed of dosh
He stuffed notes in mattress, jilted bride on wedding day & kept life-sized Elvis dummy.
102. I would say that he has not honoured the commitment made at the time of his enoblement that he would move ‘permanantly’ to the UK. I would also change the rules on donations and limit donors to those who are tax resident & domiciled - that would hurt all parties - but would simplify things - and address the ‘Bahamas vs Jersey’ question.
On Wee Wendy - the Scotsman is saying that Paul Green was nominated for an honour - he gave Glasgow City Council £1m for social development - but it gets it wrong about why Wendy should not have accepted the donation - his residence is neither here nor there - looks like the press is as clueless as many politicians:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1883512007
100. Oops! Just repeated the figures in my head. 73/27 split required in the undecideds for Huhne to win, I think.
And that’s before you allow for Alan J’s point at 104. Surely the undecided who have yet to vote are the least likely of all to vote?
Roger makes a good point, and the person in the street would not understand why a channel islander cant donate, but someone living in far off shores can.
It was a reasonable question to ask, and any fair minded would think it quite strange.
Surely it deserves a considered answer not abuse.
109 - So not much then. It doesn’t really seem Lord Ashcroft worth making the effort.
Sky released it under embargo at 6.30 because they wanted it in the sunday papers.
They go to bed around 7pm, but if it had been all other Sky News as a saturday evening story (6.30) it wouldnt have been ‘newsy’ enough for the sundays.
If you ban news companies from embargoing opinion polls, they simply won’t commission them.
Using insider information for gambling isn’t illegal (disclaimer: IANAL) it’s manipulating the result and betting on that which is breaking the law (match fixing and the like).
THe more likely scenario would be poltiical betting banned, then embargoed opinion polls banned. And i’m sure nobody wants that.
Re 49, SBS, “The Tory and SNP line on funding seems to be “I don’t give a toss if it’s moral or not, it just happens to be within the law.”
Big, big overhaul of funding needed! ”
I couldn’t agree with you less. The fact is that Labour have the hump because they have been caught breaking the law so want to muddy the waters to make it look less bad. End of.
All that needs to be done right now is that the law needs to be enforced.
BBC - “Sir Sean Connery is to resume his donations to the Scottish National Party after being ineligible for two years” - 28 August, 2003: “Sir Sean has spent the last year filming in London and is now allowed back on the electoral register as an overseas voter.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/scotland/3189149.stm
111: Yes Roger is right to ask. What is more revealing is the unpleasant reaction of these SNP supporters when they are challenged in any way. I am afraid its par for the course with them.
Test and any other English Tories who generally cheer them on should take note.
114. Shock horror! A Lib Dem (i.e. me) agrees with Benedict.
Alex 102 Police investigation - major sleaze - pay the money back immediately!
Exactly Benedict. It’s LEGAL to give through companies and registered bodies, so therefore it doesn’t matter where Ashcroft is domiciled.
Labour conspired to cover up payments of a donor - and then waived a Highways Agency rule so he could cash in with a planning application.
That’s exactly why donations must be transparent - corporate or personal.
We are now entitled to ask if there was a corrupt quid pro quo on the business park.
115 A point often raised about the SNP at Westminster despite your current Poll ratings is that your miserable 2005 effort left you a very difficult base. In other words you could record serious swings in many Labour seats but with majorities at 20%+ not actually dislodge the Labour incumbent. That plus the fact you may well keep your money in reserve for what you view as a more important (Scots 2011) election surely means you can be discounted for an impact at the next General Election or not
118 - Er, on what grounds?
Amusing new spin line developing amomg - interestingly - mostly Lib Dem posters, i.e. that the Tories are somehow aiding Labour by pressing this funding issue and/or not engaging in some kind of self-cleansing process (inevitably featuring Aschcroft).
It looks like the Lib Dems are getting very worried that Labour meltdown will also translate into very serious electoral losses for them too.
118 or not, Tim13, as Ashcroft’s company donates and it is a legal permissible donor.
Don’t you think Labour has been through Lord A with the finest toothed comb they posess?
87. Mike L, I tried to do the thing you asked yesterday night (seats Lab should have held/lost on uniform swing in 2005) using regional swings instead of the national. I did it quite fast, so I may have done some mistakes, but barring mistakes, using regional swings, Lab should have lost 17 seats they actually won and won 10 seats they should have lost (not including Bleanau Gwent and Behtnal Green)
Tim13 rather than worry about Ashcroft I suggest you should worry more about the previous Labour donors who seem to have been handled by people who were either incompetent or deliberate;y broke the law.
If Peter Watts does not understand the law about Abrahams how many other donors has he made mistakes about?
Having incompetents or crooks running your party is hardly the best of excuses to present to voters.
124. actually the opposite: should have won 17 they actually lost and lost 10 they actually won
114 Yes, but… The Tories, pace Cameron this am - do not really want to engage with the issue that “Trade Union donations” are also small donations packaged up. Unless they return to the table in a more realistic frame of mind about this, I doubt that an agreement on funding will be concluded! So, for all you Ashcroft fans, Tories need to come out of denial about both TUs and Ashcroft. And, of course, the law needs to run its course with Abrahams, Mendelsohn etc etc.
121 Domicility doesn’t come into it so all we would have is a legal donor being attacked by non-tories and the general public would wonder what all the fuss is about.
The Ashcroft smear only works at all on the basis of innuendo. You will notice than Labour politicians, as distinct from excitable posters here, carefully do not claim that there is anything illegal in the Ashcroft position, and do not say that he has broken any commitments. After all one journalist went a bit too far and cost the Times a lot of grief and cash.
125 Agree with your sentiment - I simply cannot understand how someone in Watts’s position could countenance or “not understand” the illegality of concealed donations. Any of us who have had any input in party moneys at any level since PPERA has been introduced would know that was way out of order.
Hope you count yourself among “excitable posters here” Witan?!
Re 90 as a Huhne voter I was not called up by YouGov either. Just wondering how they obtained their sample.
Having said that Chris did say on the Sky programme that Nick was ahead on Chris’s own polling data but by a rather smaller margin.
84. SBS “No chance! Labour may get 25%. When did Labour last get 30% in the local elections?”
Not counting the 2005 locals held on GE day, it’s the 2003 locals.
Re 111, Dez, “Roger makes a good point, and the person in the street would not understand why a channel islander cant donate, but someone living in far off shores can.
It was a reasonable question to ask, and any fair minded would think it quite strange.
Surely it deserves a considered answer not abuse. ”
The answer is simple, Sean Connery is a regsitered UK voter, Paul Green is not. They can live where he wants, earn where they want and pay tax where they want but only the former can donate money to a political party legally.
Re 117, Alan “114. Shock horror! A Lib Dem (i.e. me) agrees with Benedict.”
127. Sorry mate, you can obsess about Ashcroft all you like but no-one is interested. This is a story about Labour accepting illegal donations, and that’s how it will stay.
Comletely and utterly off topic, but I’ll be watching tonight
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23425150-details/%27Very%2C+very+fast%27…but+Lewis+Hamilton+can%27t+beat+Top+Gear%27s+Stig/article.do
Surely at some point minor donations which are in dispute say for example £950,and people requesting Police investgigations becomes a bit farsical.
Other agencies have more, or similar investigation powers.
So the Electoral Commision should be given them.
As the public would think this is just a joke.
When the Conservatives win the next election and Cameron becomes PM,it would be a better solution, with persons trained specifically in Electoral Law.
137. As far as I understand, the point about the #950.00 is that above #1000.00 it has to be reported. (sorry foreign keyboard won’t do pound signs)
133,
Thanks Benedict was`nt aware of that.
Don`t think I will have that problem then.
Did`nt know you had to register as I thought the channel Islands were part of the UK.
Hows about the isle of man?
It is illegal to use a company merely to give money to a political party.
I believe that Bearwood* Corporate Services Ltd is a front for someone. The ultimate control of this company is by a company registered in a place called Belize.
* Bearwood, as in - Do political parties bend the donation rules?
133 Benedict - Do we actually know that? All I have seen reported is that Paul Green is resident in Jersey - which the Press seems to assume is the problem - its not - he can be resident in Jersey and still be on the UK electoral roll - analogous to Sean Connery. If he’s not on the UK electoral roll, game over.
O/T(Sorry if someone posted):
“Huckabee New GOP Leader in Iowa Poll”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3942460&page=1
“Obama Pulls Ahead for Democrats in Iowa Poll”
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3942462&page=1
140. Bearwood is Lord A’s company and it trades in the UK quite legitimately. Lord A’s money comes from his business. He is a brilliant businessman.
Again do you *really think* Labour MPs haven’t dug around the guy for years? He’s a public servant who gives money to the party he supports very openly and legally and does so long after his peerage
139 - no, neither the Channel Islands nor the IoM are part of the UK - but residence is neither here nor there - its presence on the UK Electoral roll - just like the Sunday Hate Mail’s non-story this morning.
141 CarlottaVance
After being called-in by the Electoral Commission, Scottish Labour have already admitted that the 2 donations were illegal.
122 - you can bet your life we are not worried at all. The most likely destination of Labour voters irredeemably pissed off with Labour sleaze will be the LibDems. It’s very hard to tar us with the sleaze brush since we have a) very little cash admittedly partly because b) we have no power to give the favours in return for it: and of course we would not do so anyway being rather liberal and against that sort of thing!
The worst that anyone seems to have been able to say about us is that we accepted the cash from the blokse who turned out to be a crook later on - but not really grounds for giving it back otherwise it would lead to all sorts of nonsense.
Oh and the JRRT donates some small amounts of money to us. What terrible wickedness!
On another subject just noticed the massive move to Jan 2010+ on the election dates… a very pleasant surprise.
145. - all that demonstrates is the continuing ignorance of the rules by the Scottish Labour Party - and the BBC - who claim that:
“It is illegal for people who are based off-shore to donate to a UK political party.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7119230.stm
Not true. You can be based on Mars - as long as you are on the Electoral Register, you can donate.
Bearwood is financed not by trading but by issuing new shares at a premium (£4,678,000) the donations to The Conservative Party are not coming from profits but from this injection of cash.
Nowhere is it clear where this money comes from, but the ultimate control is exercised by a company registered in Belize. The company also fails to mention in its latest annual accounts that it makes political donations. Is this against the Companies act? The Electoral Commission records over £250,000 being received from the company for the period covered by these accounts.
146 - It is certainly true that the LibDems will gain disaffected voters from Labour, and will inevitably lead to them gaining seats at Labour’s expense.
The danger for them is that, due to Labour going into semi-permanent decline (in the context of the electoral cycle), the Conservatives become established as “the next Government in all but name”, which
a) by default gives them a credibility previously denied them
b) will see their policies start being examined in a different context (ie. they won’t always be reported as “the Conservatives are doing this to attract X,Y,Z voters” and
c) will see them drawing votes to them simply due the phenomenom of people liking to back winners.
All of which spells potential trouble in Lib/Con seats.
And to get on the electoral register you don’t even need to exist!!!
Watch out for more bogus names on the register.
146 - Just as a matter of interest, what is classed as a “small amount of money” these days?
Given Watts’ admitted incompotence and sleaze, I assume we will see more illegal doantions coming to life.
If I were the digger, I would release them one a week to keep the story boiling, halt the week before Christams and start the second week after New Year with a real humdinger to ensure the story is kept alive.
153
even incompetence.
test
136) Not to spoil your fun but if you check on the internet as per the sky poll you will find the answer.
“Again do you *really think* Labour MPs haven’t dug around the guy for years?”
Yes of course, they wont throw stones - they live in a similar glass house, don’t they!
Matthew D’Ancona makes some pertinent points in today’s Telegraph:
Labour’s misery is a tale of decline and fall
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/12/02/do0201.xml
156 It’s a great programme , I’ll wait ;), Its a bit like not watching the news in the 60/70’s to find out the result of Muhammad Ali’s fights…
152 well at last the election quite a few LibDem candidates got £200 for their election campaign.
I don’t entirely disagree with what you are saying in Lib/Con seats - but where we are already established and/or there is a largish Labour vote left I think it would favour us. Huhne for example should be a major beneficiary.
Weakness of the Labour party also helps us in that it puts further pressure on them to keep their promises wrt electoral reform - eventually there comes a time where it won’t be voting for Christmas the way it has been in the past.
Eg after seeing that poll about LD members (which I believe to wrong but anyway) many Labourites will conclude that AV is the way to go after all - after that it would only be a matter of time before a proper PR system came in. I wouldn’t be surprised if a commitment to electoral reform in local government will come shortly in any case.
Though the example of Australia is rather perplexing I believe AV would be very favourable to the LibDems - actually more so than STV though I still support it.
152: anything not enough to buy you a Lamborghini.
Sky News at 12.00 have worked out the difference between “refute” and “deny”. Things must be getting serious.
Is Stig Jack W?
157 (cough) Michael Brown (cough)
Lord Ashcroft’s donations are legal. Abrahams aren’t and Brown’s aren’t. I make that Tories 1 Labour 0 LD 0.
104 - All the lib dem leadership poll tells us is the voting of a few hundred people, it is taking a big risk in believing that there is no bias, or any other problem from using an internet based group, to try to extrapolate to wider figures.
I haven’t bet on this because of the closeness and I wouldn’t do so on such a poll.
Politics Show - Scottish Version.
Commentators says “almost inevitable” Wendy A will resign.
157 they have been throwing stones at Ashcroft for years. In view of some of your smears I think you should pass your file of evidence to the Electoral Commission.
If Lord Ashcroft has done anything illegal he should pay the price for it. He hasn’t.
The Lib Dems are once again showing that, faced with criminal behaviour on the part of the Labour Party, their first instinct is to smear the Conservaives. As ever it’s Lib Dems “whining here”.
Though the example of Australia is rather perplexing I believe AV would be very favourable to the LibDems - actually more so than STV though I still support it.
Just a word of warning - don’t give any hint in LibDem circles that you favour electoral reform because it will benefit your party or they’ll bite your head off!
(ps. not that there’s anything illegal in it but i think the JRRT have given a bit more than that).
164 perhaps you could explain the special knowledge that allows to claim Brown’s donation was legal when the Electoral Commission thought otherwise?
re 134 I often agree with Benedict about economic issues.
re 165. You can say that about all polls. You take a small sample, ask some questions, and then make an extrapolation.
New thread on Iowa and the White House race
160 I agree on large Labour votes, hence apart from the fact she acts like a muppet Gidley is toast because she has virtually nothing left to squeeze while Huhne amongst all his other advantages has a big Labour vote to ratchet on. I think however you are still off mark to say that Labour altering FPTP is not Christmas and Turkeys time any time soon. At the moment we all know the Tories have to significantly outperform Labour in votes to acquire seats. Really this would only cease making sense for Labour if they started arriving 3rd in UK general elections, and that’s not on the cards yet.
Conversely on LD fortunes the drop in Labour support looks likely to make gains from the Tories barring the usual possible shock exception all but impossible. Can they gain from Labour don’t know
160 - AV must be fought at all costs, it will cast lib dems out into the perpetual wilderness because it gives the impression of proportionality whilst helping larger parties to bigger majorities.
It is not a stepping stone, it is a dead end.
171 - True Mike, but with all party polls they have a history and much fine tuning has been done with sampling etc. To have what is effectively a one off poll means that all those checks and balances do not exist and I find it difficult to trust a poll without that sort of history.
re 138 Alan if you type ampersandpound; (replacing ampersand with the relevant symbol) like this £ then you’ll get the pound sign. Useful list here.
174 I think you are completely wrong - except in fairly unusual circumstances.
124, 126. Thanks a lot Andrea. That confirms the trend in the results you obtained last night, although the “unexpected” loss of seats is lower than the results from last night.
But the conclusion remains the same.
148,
Thanks Carlotta.
Needs to be plain and simple.
As long as you are on the United Kingdom electoral register at this moment in time you are allowed to donate.
So that is pretty easy to do then, buy a house here, live where you like abroad, and pump as much money as you like into the political party of choice.
Whats dificult to understand about that, are the BBC and the Mail thick lol.
177 - I think you are completely wrong, AV merely helps the largest vote winner.
In any case, if AV was introduced the chance for STV disappears. It’s STV or nothing and, as soon as a hung parliament happens, there should be no support for a minority government on anything until it is introduced.
180 With respect that’s dumb. What are you going to do vote no on everything even stuff you like, like House of Lords reform. Become simply obstructionist and you will set yourselves up an Aunt Sally to be blamed for everything by the Government and will likely take severe voter punishment in the following election. You have to be smarter than that
181 - Either you believe that the current system is a corruption of the voter’s will or you don’t.
If you’d never voted for a government, despite every one of them being supported by a minority of the electorate, you’d understand.
It’s about time people got angry and didn’t let themselves be pushed around and bought off with ‘trinkets’.
The ones who would be punished are those who try to act as a majority even when they are not, and deservedly so.
182 Err think. Of you can think that, try to achieve that etc but are you really saying that you should just vote no to everything even if you agree with it. Would you really saborage House of Lords reform a Liberal aim. All or nothing is very well but just be prepared to get nothing as well as all. I doubt voters would forgive the LDs in a hurry
183 - Well I’m a mere voter, not a member, let alone an activist.
If, as I suspect, Clegg is likely to be bought off like that, I will abstain or switch my vote. I don’t think that Huhne would be pushed around as easily.
182. ‘of the voter’s’?? and you a teacher as well…
184 I doubt Huhne would vote no to everything like House of Lords reform. Your voters would presumably expect you to implement as much of your manifesto as you can, unless you explicitly tell them that if we can’t achieve this then we won’t try to achieve any of the other things. That is the logic of your absolutist position
re 185 what’s the matter with the apostrophe there? The sentence reads quite well in the singular.
Could be either - the will of the individual (voter’s) or the will of the collective (voters’)!
186 - Well a specifically limited agreement over constitutional changes and emergency measures would be no problem, given that there may be a hung parliament once in a blue moon it has to be worth the potential fallout though.
I agreed with Mike about embargoes until I read Ade B’s perseptive comment at 113:
“THe more likely scenario would be poltiical betting banned, then embargoed opinion polls banned.”
This might not be the best forum to say the following, but not only would the banning of political betting be more likely, it would be less disagreeable. The idea that media should be compelled to change the way it behaves in distributing information relating to our democracy, for no other reason than to reassure political betters that other gamblers don’t have insider information, is absurd. No-one’s forcing you to gamble.
That said, it would be better if Sky and other organisations would atleast consider whether they really need to embargo opinion polls.
Obstructionism would be the quick way to a LibDem wipeout.
191 - If harnessed to the widespread view that the constitution is wrong it could easily be the making of them. Add together the issue of PR with EVEL, greater self determination for parts of the UK and so on and there suddenly becomes a more compelling reason to vite outside the two main parties.
192 - vite = vote
182
Right on.
No Budget accepted.
No pay rises for MPs.
etc
You can’t be serious!
194 - I’ve lived for years thinking that about minority supported governments being able to rule on their own.
They can’t be serious!
Frankly, decades of being nice has gone nowehere, it has to be brought to a head sometime.
“191 - If harnessed to the widespread view that the constitution is wrong it could easily be the making of them. “
What ‘widespread view’?
If you think that any one of -
FPTP is not a true reflection of the vote
EVEL are desirable
Power is too much in the hands of central government
The HoL needs reform
then you are part of that ‘widespread view’.
Kingbongo - They are not smears they are facts - I have written to the Electoral Commission and will let you know if I get a reply.
198. Did you do it in green ink?
49.”The Tory and SNP line on funding seems to be “I don’t give a toss if it’s moral or not, it just happens to be within the law.””
164.”157.(cough) Michael Brown (cough)
Lord Ashcroft’s donations are legal. Abrahams aren’t and Brown’s aren’t. I make that Tories 1 Labour 0 LD 0.”
Test, that point says it all and explains the sheer desperation of both Labour and Libdem posters who constantly try to smear Lord Ashcroft and the Tories. Now if someone can come up with the evidence that he or the Tories have done anything wrong then they can gleefully claim we are all as bad as each other! If not, trying to claim that there is something inherently wrong morally with legal donations from Connery or Ashcroft (both passionate long time supporters of the parties they donate too I might add), while others have actually broken the law is the worst kind of hypocrisy.
200.
Agreed.
Only two people I know are entitled to use green ink for their letters - The First Lord of the Admiralty and The Chairman of The John Lewis Partnership!!!
Thought green ink was the colour for auditors?
Re 139, Dez, “Did`nt know you had to register as I thought the channel Islands were part of the UK.
Hows about the isle of man? ”
Both have separate parliaments.
Re 141, Carlotta, “133 Benedict - Do we actually know that? All I have seen reported is that Paul Green is resident in Jersey - which the Press seems to assume is the problem - its not - he can be resident in Jersey and still be on the UK electoral roll - analogous to Sean Connery. If he’s not on the UK electoral roll, game over.”
He can live in the Parliament at Westminster and still not be registered to vote in the UK, and so not allowed to donate.
The point about people in Jersey is that normally they are not on the UK roll. Paul Green isn’t though obviously he need not live in Jersey to not be on the UK roll, he could do that anywhere.
Re 148, Carlotta “http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7119230.stm
Not true. You can be based on Mars - as long as you are on the Electoral Register, you can donate. ”
Yes shocking ignorance.
I have not been as clear as I would have been, but it does not matter where you live but where you are registered to vote.
Re 179, Dez, “So that is pretty easy to do then, buy a house here, live where you like abroad, and pump as much money as you like into the political party of choice.”
You don’t have to buy, you could rent.
“Whats dificult to understand about that, are the BBC and the Mail thick lol. ”
Yes. Thick as p1g sh1t.
49 “The Tory and SNP line on funding seems to be “I don’t give a toss if it’s moral or not, it just happens to be within the law.””
The Labour line on funding seems to be “I don’t give a toss if it’s legal or not, Ian Blair and the CPS answer to Labour.”