Tories take 9% lead with Ipsos-MORI
November 30th, 2007
The Lib Dems jump 4 points
Ipsos-Mori has just released its latest poll which follows the recent YouGov and ComRes surveys and shows a big increase in the Conservative lead. The shares, with comparisons on the last survey almost a month ago shows CON 41% (+1): LAB 32% (-3): LD 17% (+4).
The survey was carried out by phone from November 23rd-27th so would have caught the first part of Labour’s dodgy donations scandal.
The Tories will be delighted that they are advancing as will the Lib Dems with their massive boost.
According to the Wells seat calculator these vote shares would produce an overall Conservative majority of two seats.
Almost precisely two months ago Ipsos-MORI found CON 31%: LAB 44%: LD 15%.
My betting I was waiting for this survey before deciding whether to cash in some of my Tory buy profits on the Commons seat markets. I’m staying in because with the last three polls showing the same picture it will reinforce the betting move to the Tories away from Labour.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
Fantastic news. Ipsos Mori are if I reall kinder to Labour in eneral and a bit more volatile?
It shows Labour on a serious downward trend.
Donorgate just gets worse and worse.
My head is spinning with the developments.
On the Mori figures the predicted Tory Majorities:
Electoral Calculus: 14 seats
UK Polling Report: 2 seats
The Tories just don’t seem to be able to bust convincingly into overall majority territory, do they?
Re 3, Rod, no yet, but it will come. This news has yet to sink in and take high profile casualties. It will though.
3. I do not believe that a 41/32 split would result in such a small majority. The turnaround (more than a 6% swing IIRC), would be so big in historical terms that it would almost certainly be accompanied by a Lib Dem / Labour tactical unwind at least to neutral and probably beyond. The forced choice question in yesterday’s Yougov poll indicated that that dynamic may be happening.
LibDems main beneficiary. Disappointing for the Tories.
3- A 6% swing from the last GE is not that bad…
Back where we were in March 07 then
Ipsos MORI Con Lab LD Other
15-Mar-07 41.0% 33.0% 17.0% 9.0%
29-Nov-07 41.0% 32.0% 17.0% 10.0%
2 - Rod, seriously, if the 2010 election resulted in the shares as in the Mori poll, what do you think the seat situation would be?
6. You win the Monty Panesar spin for England prize
Some what amusing to discover that of the 52% of Mori respondents who are “certain to vote” it appears that 8% “would not vote”!
Blue=Tory majority
Red=Labour majority
White=Hung Parliament
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/polls.jpg
[nb Governments ALWAYS recover somewhat..]
ergo, HP even more likely than before..
10 Yes, Test.
Somehow I can’t see PB being inundated this weekend with the rueful reflections of disappointed Tories.
Mori polled between Friday and Tuesday.
Just me playing around with formatting
Con Lab LD Other
15-Mar-07 41.0% 33.0% 17.0% 9.0%
29-Nov-07 41.0% 32.0% 17.0% 10.0%
Con 0.41 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Lab 0.32 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LD 0.17 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Oth 0.10 xxxxxxxxxx
Look like we held off realising those profits just long enough, Mike.
6. 1979 to 1983: the main swing was from Labour to SDP/Liberal Alliance. Net result: disappointment for Tories - not.
17% is about par for the Lib Dems, 13% was well below par. It was obvious that once they got their act back together they would start to pick up their lost support. I won’t be too distraught if they collect another point or two, although as a Tory, I wouldn’t like to see them heading into the twenties - that would mean they were probably winning genuinely floating voters.
I don’t think the Tories would be worried about the LibDems going into the twenties, as long as it is clearly at the expense of Labour.
Rod Crosby All election predictors should carry the same warning as financial services: past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance.
9. My central probabilistic forecast on those numbers is
Con 316
Lab(+SDLP) 258
LD 40
Nats 18
Oth 2
NI (less SF) 11
…the Tories short by 7 seats
(assumes average LD incumbency, Nats rise by 15%, and 2005 swing pattern)
http://www.titanictown.plus.com/Swingometer.rar
19 Yes, it’s no longer a truism that LD advance at the expense of Tories. It’s much more complicated than that now.
Excellent poll for the Tories. I saw Sarkozi interviewed last night and it was so civilized compared to the way our interviewers interview our politicians. It’s really no wonder they all behave like rabbits caught in headlights and are always so defensive. I think it’s time for the media to start treating them with respect as they would with any professional.
2005 - What does “2005 swing pattern” mean?
18,21. A LD advance increases the chance of a HP, and the lead either major party requires to prevent it…
19. Do you seriously think Labour will not recover from the nadir, wherever the nadir is?
22. Tories advance 1(!!) point after all that’s happened - not excellent by a long way.
20. IMO, I’d say that’s actually a very fair forecast for the next general election itself. Good work.
Personally, I’d drop the Tories by 10 and increase Labour by 10.
I expect a Tory result in 2010 of just over 300 seats, with Labour + Lib Dem aggregate about the same. I don’t think the Conservatives are strong enough on the ground in the North for any better.
That would make it interesting, but would probably be enough in reality for the Tories to govern for a full-term. Lib/Lab wouldn’t unite that often, I doubt the SNP would help Labour and the DUP could support Conservatives if push came to shove.
300 seats should be a fair target. It is *THE* target for a full Tory 5-year term.
22/25 - Is there nowhere where one can escape from the spectacle of Labour supporters fighting amongst themselves?
20 - out of interest who are the “Others”? Blaneau? Wyre Forest? One of the Brighton seats going to the Greens?
IMO Wyre Forest will probably go Tory, even if the doctor stands again (I gather the LibDems are putting up a candidate there and it’s highly likely that most usually LD voters have backed him). Blaneau may go back to Labour but it’s unlikely after they lost both the bye and then failed to regain the Assembly seat. It is possible though that the Greens could take a Brighton seat, though if the Mori figures were repeated in May 2010 I fancy that they’d both go blue
24 - In the context of both main parties being candidates for an overall majority, it is obviously true that a general LibDem advance (in terms of votes) increases the chances of a hung parliament.
It is however, easy to model a scenario where a net LibDem advance almost exclusively at the expense of one party does nothing of the sort. You only have to look at 1983 to see that.
24. Isn’t he in Cyprus?
Is it possible for the Conservatives to “punch a blue corridor” through the red belt in Yorkshire/Lancashire up to David Mundell with this result - similar to reaching West Berlin through East Germany ??
In other words, if you were so inclined, you could travel from the South Coast to the Scottish Border without leaving Tory territory.
Electoral calculus would appear to say; “No.”
30 StJohn
Any chance of you compiling a PB Christmas Crossword?
23. A variation in the swing (to the Tories) around the regions as manifested in 2005: - to wit:
London +1.8
Eastern +1.1
South East +0.4
Wales 0
West Midlands 0
East Midlands -0.1
North West -0.5
North East -0.7
Scotland -0.8
Yorks/Humber -1.1
South West -1.4
The overall swing in this poll is 6%, so add the differentials listed above to 6%, e.g. London swing = 7.8%
The swingometer allows other recent patterns. I think the most likely pattern is the 2005 pattern or a “negative 1997″ pattern.
On a neg 1997 pattern the Tories do a bit better
Con 320
Lab 256
LD 40
Nats 16
Oth 2
NI 11
Tories short by 3 seats…
32. Peter. Now there’s a thought.
The reason I describe it as ‘excellent’ is because it’s from the pollster MORI who ask face to face somewhere near 2000 people what their voting intentions are. I don’t think there is any other system that matches this for authenticity and for showing a genuine snapshot of opinion. Does it mean the Tories will win the next election? A flying pig’s just relieved itself!
29. True, but in 1983 the Alliance advance was at the expense of the party in second place.
33 - What are the respective swings on the “negative 97″ patterns?
34 Seriously, I’m sure it would be popular.
31.
Electoral Calulus thinks the UK is made of bricks
On a real map the last YouGov poll (how easily it is forgotten by some posters) would create a blue corridor up the Pennines and beyond
25. Gabble you’re priceless. Who do you work for?
22 Roger “I saw Sarkozi interviewed last night and it was so civilized compared to the way our interviewers interview our politicians. ”
I wonder why the journalists are polite to him?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-10-07-russia-journalist_x.htm
38. OK. I will drop Mike a line and if he’s agreeable I will give it a shot.
35 - They disregard half of them Roger. The results on their pre-97 methodology (ie. the one which gave Labour leads of 20%+) are:
Con 36
Lab 37
Lib 17
Others 10
Rod Crosby You have to assume, for any model, that past patterns will repeat, if not completely then at least in modified form.
I do not think that is always going to give you the right answer when a change could be quite a shift in those well known tectonic plates.
And then you have people, and their enthusiasm for any particular party, for a change, for a continuation. And within that will be the future of tactical voting.
For the last four elections it has been an anti-tory alliance but there is no certainty that will be the case in the next if the sea change is big enough, and any election where on party is above 40% after being soundly beaten in the previous three elections, would be such a change. Indeed the Yougov poll suggests that tactical position is undergoing change.
How any model can take account such a psychological kaleidoscope, I do not know. Once a ’standard pattern’ has been re-established then the models will be more likely to give a more certain indication of the likely outcome.
I am not saying your forecast is wrong, only that it is not necessarily right and it is only one of a series of possible outcomes from the same data and that range of possibilities grows more disparate when big changes are taking place.
40 - What has that got to do with Sarkozi?
31 I should have thought so. High Peak/Colne Valley/Calder Valley would link the South and Midlands to North Yorkshire, and then Penrith I think.
28. Yes, I agree the Others are by definition sui generis results, and hard to predict.
I have added Blauenau to the Labour column, because it is essentially a binary Labour outcome. Either they regain it, or they don’t but Dai Davies votes with Labour…
The other two are Wyre Forest and Bethnal Green, of which I know the latter is unlikely. However Galloway is in with a chance in Poplar & Limehouse, so two Others looks like the central prediction. For Pavilion to go Green under the model the Other votes would have to be a bit higher than they currently are.
It’s only a central prediction, and the 95% confidence level is about +/- 10 seats for Labour and Con, and about +/-5 for the LibDems.
45 SeanF - Thanks for your earlier piece.
Although I don’t often comment (locals aren’t really my bag) I always read it, and am invariably entertained and enlightened.
31,45 - Reminds me of blockbuster - one team trying to go left to right across the board, the other up-down…
22-Roger- “I saw Sarkozi interviewed last night and it was so civilized compared to the way our interviewers interview our politicians.”
We always think that the “grass is greener on ther other side”
39/45. Excellent!
Thou shalt be my future route to Scotland!
Does AA routemaster do an option; ” avoiding Labour constituencies” ??
37. The full set of patterns since 1992 are (including the notional “neg 1997 pattern”)
2005
LN +1.8
EA +1.1
SE + 0.4
WA 0
WM 0
EM -0.1
NW -0.5
NE -0.7
SC -0.8
YH -1.1
SW -1.4
2001
LN -1.1
EA +0.2
SE -1.4
WA +2.0
WM 0
EM +0.8
NW +0.5
NE +1.2
SC -1.6
YH +1.0
SW -0.8
1997
LN -3.0
EA -2.4
SE -1.5
WA +3.1
WM +0.6
EM -0.8
NW 0
NE -0.6
SC +2.8
YH +1.4
SW +1.2
neg 1997
LN +3.0
EA +2.4
SE +1.5
WA -3.1
WM -0.6
EM +0.8
NW 0
NE +0.6
SC -2.8
YH -1.4
SW -1.2
1992
LN -1.3
EA -1.6
SE -0.4
WA -0.5
WM -1.0
EM -2.6
NW + 0.2
NE -0.6
SC +4.6
YH +0.5
SW -1.0
The neg 1997 pattern is very similar to the 2005 pattern, except more variable. The Tories do significantly better in London(LN), South-East(SE) and Eastern(EA) regions under both…
43. Agreed, the model shows the Tories reaching a majority if there is tactical unwind by LD voters in Labour seats. I just think the jury is still out on that one…
49- Actually our president’s name is spelled SarkozY.
Many French people complain that French journalists are not aggressive enough but they would be really shocked by the treatment British politicians receive on TV.
45: Isn’t there a map which shows how you can cross the country by councils without Labour councillers?
51. I’ve just run the regional figures from the Yougov poll (being a poll of 4000 and hence much closer to being valid polls in their own right)through Electoral Calculus and that too suggests the possibility of a Small conservative majority. My guess would be less than 10.
53. There is the Election 2007 page on the BBC website. It has an interactive map.
I just heard a comedian on radio say “It’s difficult to know how Gordon Brown could be more unpopular without divorcing Paul Macartney”
52-”Actually our president’s name is spelled SarkozY.”
As you can see I put quotation marks!!!(post 49)
I ain’t surprise with the treatment that British politians receive and I’m not British!!!!
31 ‘I should have thought so. High Peak/Colne Valley/Calder Valley would link the South and Midlands to North Yorkshire, and then Penrith I think.’
There’s another option… Tories win Brigg and Goole.
57-It should read:
“British politicians”!
For those who don’t think this is too bad for Labour this poll was conducted between the 23 and 27 November.
“In other words, if you were so inclined, you could travel from the South Coast to the Scottish Border without leaving Tory territory”
Known in the business as the nightmare scenario! We’d all buy boats and take the long way round.
Looking at 61 the wine in the South of France must be good tonight.
You’ve lost your p
So; where do we go from here?
Last week, the data loss scandal demonstrated the cavalier attitude towards privacy issues & IT systems with sections of the civil service. There’ll be many, many more similar stories waiting to be uncovered - especially now that the press have a taste for doing so.
(I’m sure that things were as bad (if not worse) under previous administrations, but this government has overseen a huge increase in the amount of data being gathered on us - simply, there are more opportunities for things to go wrong.)
This week, we have a couple of stories about petty corruption. Nothing that couldn’t have been swept under the carpet if the government were genuinely popular, though (think back to the Ecclestone farrago).
There’ll be more of this to come too - keep your eyes on junior ministers / party officials who have no experience of being in opposition. These will be the people who’re most likely to believe that they are in power as of right, and will therefore be most likely to consider bending or breaking the laws to stay there.
What next?
If there’s nothing other than a continuation of this level of bad news for Labour, the public will get bored quickly. The press won’t be able to shriek with indignation over every one of a stream of stories on this level.
In this scenario, Labour will drift up by a couple of points in the polls, but the real question is about the Tories. Do they have what it takes to move decisively out of the sub-40% box?
Cameron has more policy announcements set for January and May of next year, I believe (and again at the party conference, of course). Will these be enough to help them make that leap?
On the other hand, if something Really Bad strikes, all bets are off. I’m thinking of something along the lines of a house price crash, serious corruption (or even arrests over the current case), widespread public sector strikes over pay, a spike in inflation, another war, etc.
If any of those were to happen, the past month’s issues will be swept away. No-one will care about them - or about any forthcoming Tory policy initiatives. Ironically, an event of this magnitude might actually give Labour a better chance at the next election - but only if Brown were to fall on his sword, and be replaced by a completely new team.
61.
The sea is a blue as it gets Roger
So, essentially the polls are showing that Labour is starting to recover from the events of the previous few days, from -12 to -9 is bad but at least it is movement in the right direction (though I’ll I have to check for dates and sample sizes). I think people are starting to realize that, apart from a minor violation of campaign law, nothing substantial has happened and that the press, and certain sections of the police, seem to want to hype this nonsense up.
Looks like you’re taking the “p”, Roger.
65. I’d have thoughts arrests and charges were inevitable now, in Son of Donorgate, no?
Didn’t Brown himself admit there had been unlawful donations? Hence the law was broken, hence there must be charges.
Arguably, it might be better now for Labour if there were arrests and convictions. No one believes them any more, the press needs red meat, someone has to be ritually sacrificed so the sun can rise over the Pyramid of the Moon etc etc.
Another whitewash will do no good.
Oooh: Labour MP (anon) quoted on CH4 (telling Harman’s people) “You will only save your own a.r.s.e.s. if you save Gordon’s!”
66 - Lol Matthew you really are comical sometimes.
64 - What is the “sub 40 box”?
66. Matthew I’ll buy you a new bail of hay. You must be running out of straws to clutch on to!
er bale
Looks like Yougov have a serious problem picking up LibDem support . I have a couple of theories why this is but let’s wait and see what Populus have to say first to see if Yougov are out on a limb .
66. Matthew, you’re doing the old trick of compared findings from different pollsters. Mike has told you serveral times that it’s not a fair way to do it. All you can do is compare from last time.
Depends really on who gets arrested, I suppose. Minor funcionary? Who cares. Harriet Harman or one of the Alexanders? All hell will break loose.
But it’s not anything the Tories can sink their teeth into. In fact, the best thing they can do is to stay quiet and leave it to the press to do the digging instead. This week’s spectacle of them releasing the name of the “fifth donor”, only to retract it again 20 minutes later is playing with fire.
73 - is it just possible that people have a serious problem supporting the Lib Dems instead?
The self-denial of some Labour posters is really quite astonishing and really knows no bounds.
Isn’t it ironic (dont’cha think?) that party funding finished off the Liberals as a Government force and may now open the door for them, whilst possibly killing off Labour.
re 66. Matthew - your approach to polling analysis is rubbish - complete rubbish. You can only compare surveys from the same pollster using the same methodology. All three polls this week have shown sharp reverses for Labour. Learn to live with it.
68, Yes inevitable I would lock the tory voting lolipop lady up straight away lol.
It was a disgrace to give money to Labour.
As for the builder hanging to good for him, he knew what he was doing giving money to Labour and he hated them.
77: Denial is the first phase of grief
;o)
76 If that was the case then all the polls would show LibDems at 14%ish not just Yougov ,
Alex @ 70
You’re right - for me to talk about the Tories being in a “sub 40% box” sounds silly when the last batch of polls have had them above this level.
But what I’m trying to do is to get a clear view of the underlying picture, ignoring the noise of the current scandals.
Do you really believe that Cameron’s done anything to pull his party up above the 37-39% level they were at a month ago? Surely the current figures are simply a reaction to Labour’s bad news, rather than a positive move towards the Conservatives?
Cameron - in fact, the whole of the shadow front bench - have to be ready to make a decisive move forwards once this noise has died down.
Jack Straw just came on telly and said Brown is a man of “unquestionable rectitude and integrity, indeed a living saint with his own stigmata” (OK I made up the last bit)
Sorry jack, I’m confused. This amazingly honest Gordon Brown guy, that is the same Gordon “tell a whopper” Brown who went live on TV and said the opinion polls had “nothing to do with his calling off the election”, right?
Mmm? Jack? Is this the same guy? Is it? This prime minister of “unquestionable honesty”, it is the same politician who simply went on TV and told a series of terrible lies to save his skin? Right?
79 - No, Mike, lets be fair to Matthew and take his approach at face value. Unfortunately the Mori poll predates the YouGov poll, so he will have to update his analysis. I’m sure we all wait to hear his revised analysis with interest
CH4: Abrahams issues statement “Mendelsohn discussed the proxie donors in April..”
86 - ouch. That could be something of a killer blow
O/T-But the Guardian is saying that
“US police say a man is holding one or more hostages at Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire campaign office. More details soon …”
79 Mike , I have just noticed that this Mori poll is not their monthly monitor with a circa 2,000 sample face to face but a telephome sample of circa 1,000 . Will we have the usual Mori monitor poll in the next week or so also .
As for the Solicitor and the plod whos about to make a sideline on tipping the media off on the upcoming dawn raids.
There ok height of moral authority in society.
The legal society and the Police federation will make sure of that.
83. Do you really believe that Cameron’s done anything to pull his party up above the 37-39% level they were at a month ago?
14 of the last 18 polls (since the end of the Conservative conference - 6th October) have given the Conservatives 40% plus rating.
Don’t think your statement stands up to scrutiny really…..
83 - The Tories have been out of the “sub 40″ box for a fair bit longer than a month - 15 of the last 19 polls.
But anyway, you are right that most of the current situation in the polls is a lot more to do with Labour than the Tories (although the Tory share has actually been pretty consistently independent of Labour’s woes - it is the gap between them that has fluctuated). But it does not follow that Labour will recover all the support that they have lost. Of course once the fuss dies down they will likely recover to some extent, although to what level is dependent partly on how far they fall - you can’t assume that they have yet hit rock bottom. But some support will have been lost permanently.
92 You’re right - missed the latest one off!
;o)
80 - dez unfortunately for you i think it unlikely that you will be able to nab the “Tory lollipop lady” with anything. Last time I checked it wasn’t a crime to write a blank cheque. The cheque was made out to Labour in her name, but her story is that she didn’t give that cheque to Labour directly.
O/T-”Hostage Situation at Clinton Office in N.H”
“A young woman with a 6-month or 8-month-old infant came rushing into the store just in tears, and she said, ‘You need to call 911. A man has just walked into the Clinton office, opened his coat and showed us a bomb strapped to his chest with duct tape,’” witness Lettie Tzizik said.”
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/hostage-situation-at-clinton-office-in-nh/index.html?hp
94 (con) - might be able to get her on a trumped up charge of money-laundering, but that’s pushing it a bit.
95. Hell, Hilary was out at the time….
Dale predicting HH campaign team to admit another breach of the code.
http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2007/11/harman-about-to-admit-guilt.html
Abrahams statement is dynamite for Mendelsohn.
99 - Abrahams claiming that he discussed his arrangement in April!
Something a bit fishy about this Abrahams statement. Why would Mendelsohn having been discussing donations with him in April? Circumstantial evidence says that it’s nonsense.
98 - Iain Dale really gets a bit carried away sometimes. If he wants to stand for MP somebody high up should tap him on the shoulder and tell him to calm down.
The problem for brown is that he’s about to embark on the 28 days extension and eu treaty ratification. The right wing press will attack brown over the eu, while the left wing press will attack him over 28 days extension. He is in serious trouble, especially as some labour mps will be rebelling against both. can the blairites resist this opportunity to really hurt brown??
jsfl @ 91
bah! That’ll teach me to indulge in any vague handwaving on pb.com - you are, of course, right about those figures.
My general point still stands though, I think - but let me try putting it slightly differently:
Labour’s internal woes are very, very bad for them - but they’re not much better than neutral for the Conservatives. Yes, they’ll benefit from being not-Labour - but, unless Cameron wants to come over as being very petty and non-Prime Ministerial, he’s going to be shut out of the media for the next few days.
I honestly believe that the current polling is worse than useless for predicting the outcome of the next general election - and will be until things settle down and the parties get back to talking competing over the real business of government.
Unless, of course, something worse comes along to sustain Labour’s present difficulties…
With so many clear unambiguous breaches of the law to be going on, I don’t think it is at all in the interests of the Tories to be going around publicising what are far closer to “technicalities”.
58. Wouldn’t you have to go through Pendle or Keighley?
94,
Thats a shame the boys in blue would like a quick clear up.
Thought she would admit it like the builder in interview
There only defence ignorance of the law.
Anyways I bet the cleaner gets it lol or any poor bastard who cant afford a decent brief.
I bet Abrahams is a proxy for Mendelsohn…
106 - I’m not sure exactly what law the builder, the cleaner, or even Mr Abrahams are supposed to have broken (in respect of the Labour Party donations - the HH donation is less clear cut). There is no law against giving a Party money via a third party, provided the Party is aware of it so that they are not prompted to report it inaccurately. Since the Labour Party were aware of the origin of the donations, I can’t see how the offences stretch beyond themselves.
97-RodCrosby- =)
107 - Considering the Hain news last night, I think it far more likely that Mendelsohn is a proxy for Abrahams
108. Weird
Did Mendelsohn make any donations to Brown’s campaign team? And has he explained why he gave Hain a donation, seeing as Brown was backing Johnson?
But who is the real donor? Abrahams surely doesn’t have money on the scale donated.
86
‘CH4: Abrahams issues statement “Mendelsohn discussed the proxie donors in April..”
One could be forgiven for thinking that Abrahams is a Tory plant;just when Labour think they have apportioned the blame and reached rock bottom with this scandal,up pops Abrahams and drops them back in it again.
114 - his timing has been quite splendiferous.
Abrahams is reputed to have fallen out badly with Mendelsohn over some Jewish society Abrahams was ejected from.
108 The Builder, the lolipop lady, , philanthrpist the candle stick maker uncle tom cobbley and all.
If the knowingly knew what they were doing then the law will have been broken.
However the defence is they did not I expect.
Amusing thing is, all these third parties who were gifted cash are going to owe whacking huge sums of tax.
Of course, if Labour does return the cash, it goes back to them……
118 - You don’t get taxed on gifts - unless the donor pegs it and then it becomes an inheritance tax issue.
HMRC’s only way in would be to show that the gift was in fact some form of salary/dividend and was wholly depnedent on some service rendered. I’m not sure they would bother.
116 - Obviously all a set-up. Probably a fake bust up
105. Yes, that’s one possibility, Halifax / Shipley is another.
117 - Nah. The donations didn’t break the law, only the reporting of them. No information enabling the proper reporting of the donation was with-held. Ergo no case to answer
108 Surely in all cases, the law broken, has been to attempt to falsify the identity of the donor. Those who fronted for the donations could surely be accused of being accessories to that, even if it was done via a blank cheque. I would have thought anyone going about their business with a reasonable amount of natural prudence would have thought an arrangement such as that unusual, to say the least.
118 some blogger pointed out earlier that for that reason, cf ukip, it may be confiscated and given to the Treasury instead of returned to the donor
119 - Not sure it even needs to be classed as gift to dismiss the case does it.
Suppose i give you a twenty pound note and ask you to go and put it on “Mr Drifter” in the 3.45 at Lingfield (which then loses).
Taxable? Surely not?
119 that would apply if it was a perosnal gift without reservation - that doesn’t apply here as there was no gift. I’d like to see the bit of the tax code that makes it clear an employer can hand money to an employee for a specific purpose without creating a liability - it would be very useful in the contracting world.
O/T Shortlist announced for BBC Sports Personality of the year. I presume Hamilton and Calzaghe will be favourites?
Joe Calzaghe - Undisputed world super-middleweight boxing champion.
#
Lewis Hamilton - World championship runner-up in his rookie Formula One season.
#
Ricky Hatton - Fights Floyd Mayweather for WBC world title on eve of show.
#
Andy Murray - Broke into the world top 10 despite an injury that ruled him out of Wimbledon.
#
Christine Ohuruogu - Returned from one-year ban for missing three drugs tests to land world 400m title in Osaka.
#
Paula Radcliffe - Won the New York Marathon just 10 months after giving birth to a baby daughter.
#
Jason Robinson - Retired after playing key part in England making the Rugby World Cup final.
#
Justin Rose - Captured golf’s European Order of Merit title.
#
James Toseland - Claimed the World Superbikes Championship for the second time.
#
Jonny Wilkinson - Shrugged off injury to help England to Rugby World Cup final.
122 - My understanding, and I am not a lawyer, is that the donations were of different origin to that declared ergo the donations were not legal under PPERA. The person who passed on the money, in all but one case were probably aware of the identity of the donor and concealed it, an offence I believe under PPERA. And the source of the money conspired to conceal himself as a source, which I understand is contrary to PPERA.
122,
I thought it was, in that they didnt disclose that the money came from another source and wasn`t their own.
So they were covering up the real donor.
They definatley need legal advice, can you help them ?
Anyways it was the lolipop lady that did it in the conservatory.
With the lead pipe.
119. You can be charged IHT at 20% on lifetime gifts, if they (or their running total) exceed your nil-rate band; the gifts are re-assessed on death, and an IHT tax-adjustment is made.
120. Remember Mendelsohn has form.
http://www.gregpalast.com/browns-fixer-explains-how-its-donejon-mendelsohn-and-the-secret-tape/
So it looks like it was “business as usual.”, i.e. I’ll get my backers to pass the money to you David, and you find some stupid goys in the North East to pass the money to Labour…
Why Labour didn’t implode over this way back in 1998, God only knows…
128 - My reading is that the problem in your post is the following line:
“The person who passed on the money, in all but one case were probably aware of the identity of the donor and concealed it, an offence I believe under PPERA”
I only read this as an offence, and i’m not a lawyer either, if the identity of the donor was concealed to the recipient, who is responsible for the correct reporting of the donation. Since this was not concealed, the Labour Party were fully aware of the actual donor, it seems to be that the Labour Party were the guilty party. The donor has no role in communicating their donation to the Electoral Commission, ergo there is no liability accruing to them for the subsequent concealment.
The question is whether conspiracy to conceal is an offence under the act, and may be what catches, certainly Abrahams, and possibly all except the Tory women (much to Dez’s chagrin!
) However presumably to prove conspiracy to conceal you may have to prove that those involved knew the law.
131 - When did ignorance of the law become a defence?
125 The £20 is not a gift and you are appointing an unpaid agent - the money is always yours. The analogy is false. Also it would be less than £250 and therefore tax free by definition.
If anybody knows of a way an employer can hand large sums to an employee without creating a taxable liability let me know - it would be useful to many of my friends (as a teacher I am stuck with PAYE)
132 - I was specifically referring to the possible offence of conspiracy (to break the law). How can you have a conspiracy to break the law, if the participants in the conspiracy aren’t aware the law is being broken?
Guido reporting that the Harman party is cancelled.
http://www.order-order.com/2007/11/party-is-over.html
133 tax etc
I can’t see how the tax angle will fly. Surely what private individuals do with their own post-tax money is their own business?
If I don’t have a bank account and win £25,000 on the gee-gees and want to buy a big diamond for the Mrs from a dealer who won’t accept cash; then it must be completely right that I can pay it into my best mates account who then buys the diamond ring with his card and gives the ring to me.
Bear in mind I am neither an accountant nor a lawyer
135. Boo Hoo.. Boo Hoo Hoo..
Will she return their ticket-money?
103. I’m not in disagreement with you.
However, I don’t think Labour will fully recover from this. Brown will now be painted with the same brush as his predecessor. Brown claimed a new type of politics but instead of honour and competence we have sleaze and incompetence. Add to this a downturn in the economy, an understandable lack of new policy (so much for change - but this is the 3rd term)and Brown’s lesser ability to communicate as well to the electorate and Labour do have real and potentially lasting problems. I believe that to some extent Brown has boxed himself into a corner on the economy and public service spending and he can’t resolve the coming issues with one without creating problems for the other.
As for Cameron he does not need much coverage at the moment as long as the news is bad for Labour. He has plenty of time to hone his policy portfolio and get it out to the population. In reality, I suspect we’ve only seen the 1st broadside and I’m sure there will be other popular and effective policies announced as things progress.
He has the same period to display his ministerial team to the electorate and increasingly in most cases they already compare well against their opposite numbers.
Furthermore, he is now building relationships with our major allies.
True, that events could change the situation and the Conservatives could still turn accident prone again. There are also awkward issues to work round (EU, WLQ, Health, Party Funding proposals) where they are barely more convincing than the other parties. Anyone one of these could cause a ‘grammargate’ or worse, if not dealt with carefully.
However, the way I see it, as it stands the Conservatives are on course for a small majority. They have the initiative and ‘control of the board’ for the moment and if they can keep these it will be very difficult for Brown and Labour to dislodge them.
My guess is that we will have a clearer picture by March. If the Conservatives are still in the 40% plus range then I suspect the rot will have begun to set in with Labour.
133 - Why were the builder, the secretary etc not acting as unpaid agents for Abrahams?
136. See 130. So, by splitting the total up amongst several “donors” there could be conspiracy to defraud the Inland Revenue…
139: Because, according to Abrahams, the money was gifted to them, and they coincidentally all just decided to donate it to Labour.
Of course, the fact most of them clearly weren’t even aware they’d made a donation at all might slightly dent this interpretation. And that one detested politicians. And another was a Tory.
Alex,
I dont think the authorities have to prove that those involved knew the law.
That defence will be used I have no doubt, and any judge or jury would have sympathy I guess, if you state it was my nasty boss that made me do it guv, and by the way I hate Labour.
It will be yet again the CPS who decide if there is a 51% chance of securing a conviction.
For the plebs at the bottom who use the ignorance defence expect a caution from a nice Inspector with a cup of tea.
This will be an expensive drink for the tax payer, but a nice little earner for the Police.
141 - I lose track of what Abrahams’ version is. I admit i may be guilty of dealing with the reality of what happened rather than what Abrahams claimed happened.
142 - I still think we’re talking cross purposes. I only referred to “ignorance” being a defence in the context specifically of post 134. Surely you can’t have an unwitting conspiracy?
Wrt the rest, the defence is simple: no case to answer. The law broken was not the giving of the donation, but the way the donation was reported. Labour were responsible for the way the donation was reported, not the donors, and they were fully aware of the status of the donors.
139 well according to agency theory they were his agents. Not all agencies however are legal. The betting shop example was a legal agency.
136 up to a point - if it appears that the money is not actually a gift then it is less clear. If the money is going to an employee it raises even more questions. HMRC are quite within their rights to assume the worst and get you to prove them wrong.
I don’t think the taxman will want to get involved but I am intrigued by this complicating factor - my tax law training is wildly out of date so would welcome a tax lawyer/accountant’s view.
The planning aspect is back and now Hazel Blears is being asked questions…..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7121658.stm
More interesting is Labour’s eg. Peter Watt’s defence. I guess it will centre on whether the donors had free will in making their donations. If they had genuine free will then I suppose it could be argued that actually no law was broken and the donations were recorded correctly.
Mendelsohn denying Abrahams claims. It certainly seems that the original story is that they were sworn enemies is breaking down somewhat.
148 - They sound as if they are now though!!
146 - i would be very surprised if anything comes of this. It’ll basically require Council Officers to come forward and say that they were leaned upon by their political superiors, or that their advice was ignored.
Has Wendy Alexander resigned yet? There’s so many fires starting I can’t keep track of them all……
At times like this I think it’s best to sit back and let those involved just maul each other to death, bloody but compelling.
151 - No she has admitted writing that personal letter though and expects to ‘tough it out’. She should write another personal letter though, and resign!
#112 Did Mendelsohn make any donations to Brown’s campaign team?
Yes.
The Wendy Alexander thing really is a bit silly. Just the Scottish Press feeling left out of all the excitement i reckon.
150. Indeed, but it is just another aspect for which negative sound bytes regarding Labour can be provided over the next few days/weeks
Thing is, Durham is an LD Council so they will not have quite so many qualms speaking out if they were put under undue pressure.
Looks like the American SWAT team in New Hampshire are about to dynamite the building!
155 - Well if it’s a LD council then that just makes it even more unlikely. Did anybody tell Chris Huhne?
157. He’s the one calling for the police to investigate along with Eric Pickles.
Tyson, you about, mate ? I think I need a shoulder to cry on. Harriet’s position looks well bleak.
154.
Af anything Wendy has done the most legally wrong out of any of the names mentioned.
156. Hilary must be home, then..
160 - Well her case is probably more cut and dried than the others.
158 - Er, that was my point. He’s effectively calling in the police to investigate a LibDem Council!
160/2 - Proportionality.
157: The Highways Agency blocked plans for Durham Green, Abrahams indirectly donated £200,000 to Labour, then the Highways Agency changed its mind.
164 - that’s true. I was forgetting the facts of the case
163. Apologies misunderstood…
156 Alex “Looks like the American SWAT team in New Hampshire are about to dynamite the building!”
A bit hasty isn’t it? They must be absolutely sure that Hilary is in there.
166 - No problem, I think at least half of my posts this evening have been based on misunderstandings…
I think the phrase is “random musings”
God i really hate it when the UK 24 hr channels get obsessed with minor local American local issues. The same scene is probably being acted out somewhere in every US state. Probably in the UK somewhere as well.
Indeed very true. Well that’s it for me tonight. I’m sure there will be plenty to chew over tomorrow. Never know even a resignation perhaps.
Nah it’s Labour perhaps not…
Evil Knievel has died.
Wendy Alexander used to work for George Galloway - OUCH
164. It has already been said elsewhere that ‘ministers interfered’ with this decision.
That is called corruption.
Why the hell is Wendy Alexander still in her post tonight?
Who within the Scottish Labour party has been involved in the decision to allow her to “tough it out”?
Last two entries on Brian Taylor’s blog are worth reading.
174.Forgot to post the link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/
Mendelsohn & Abrahams flatly contradict each other in