Are Labour’s Scottish revelations coming from inside?
December 4th, 2007
Police are called in to find the “mole”
With the donations row continue to dominate politics both north and south of the border there’s a new development in the Scotsman this morning - a suggestion that someone inside the party’s Scottish HQ is leaking information about donations.
According to the paper’s main lead “..There is fury among senior Labour figures that someone with access to confidential information has been leaking it to the press and causing massive damage to the party..Two Labour peers, Lord Maxton and Baroness Adams, who both gave money to Wendy Alexander’s leadership campaign in the summer, notified the police about what they claimed were documents “stolen” from the Labour Party.”
Quite what to make of this I don’t know. It might reflect tensions in the party which is facing an uphill struggle against the SNP. Alternatively it could be a PR move to try to deflect attention from the growing pressure on the party’s Scottish leader who, like Brown, got her job with having the bother of facing a contested election, Wendy Alexander.
This afternoon Ms Alexander will attend a meeting of MSPs - it will be interesting to see if they back her. Certainly she cannot have been pleased by Brown’s less than ringing endorsement yesterday.
In an ICM poll for Newsnight 57% of those surveyed said they thought Brown was “tainted by sleaze” compared with 28% for Cameron and 15% for acting Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable. The same poll had Brown beating Cameron by 43% to 41% on the question who is best “cut out to be PM”. The Tory, however, beat Gord by 43%-42% on who was “a competent leader“.
I never pay much attention to such non-voting intention surveys.
Meanwhile there could be more coming from Westminster about the affair following a move by the Tories to get a commons debate on party funding reform.
Mike Smithson
MessageSpace Advertising
I had assumed the plan was for Wendy to remain in place until all the details were in the open, thus enabling her successor to begin with a tabula rasa. If she went now, the new “leader” would likely be similarly tainted as further details emerged.
Whatever the case, it’s next to inconceivable that she’ll still be there for 2011, which isn’t great news for the SNP: any of the likely contenders to succeed her would do a better job.
You have to wonder what these people are on. Watergate was not about identifying Deep Throat.
Even more stupid is the Prime Minister’s determination that no-one must resign, let alone be sacked. Alexander should go, Hain should go, Harman should go.
I can’t help wondering, though, if Conservatives aren’t getting excited over the wrong story. The donor stories will run and run. Giving a Cabinet Office job to the HMRC chief who supposedly resigned over losing the discs is a kick in the teeth to the 25 million whose details (and children’s details) were lost.
The interesting finding is that Brown is after everything still seen as a better Prime Minister than Cameron. The Tory activists and astroturfers who pop in every Wednesday to cheer Cameron at PMQs should pause and take heed. Shouting abuse across the despatch box impresses no-one. Brown calmly answering and relying on the microphones to pick up his voice over the cheers and jeers does work.
Here is how Cameron should play PMQs: more in sorrow than anger. Two groups of three questions so his colleagues can weigh up how things are going, and possibly redirect him. Lead on Grey’s new job. Summarise Wendy’s funding scandal: why is she still in office? Then do same for Hain. Then Harman.
What donorgate needs is evidence of a quid pro quo, a bribe. The odd £5,000 to deputy leadership campaigns, let alone £950, may show ministers to be slimy and self-serving but does not greatly excite the public. Maybe Cameron should ask Brown whether the government intends to review all planning applications involving Abrahams.
(Don’t make that the last question, btw, or Brown will bring up Ashcroft.)
The sense seems to be that people should be allowed to do with their own money as they wish. It strikes the same note as IHT. Abraham’s use of proxies makes it look like he was not seeking ermine or other preferment, so by and large, people don’t care. The same was true under Major: the scandal was that MPs took money, not that Al Fayed gave it.
1. rullko - “… any of the likely contenders to succeed her would do a better job.”
Err… you are kidding, right?
Who, exactly, are “the likely contenders”? Jackie Baillie? Sarah Boyack? Malcolm Chisholm? George Foulkes? Cathy Jamieson? Frank McAveety? Peter Peacock? David Whitton?
Who?
3. Sorry, rubbish. These dodgy donors, Scotland included, are property developers and there’s very much a sense of quid (or quids) pro quo. They look like they are corruptly buying planning permission off Labour and that is exactly why donations must be transparent.
South of the border it looks like Abrahams used a man’s name without his permission to give money to this corrupt shower and he has called in the police.
Go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass go do not collect two hundred pounds or removal of a Highways Agency objection to your business park!
At PMQs I would certainly ask why Brown has hired back the man who presided over loss of 25 million bank accounts to the Cabinet Office.
Again, it makes me angry to hear PLP members full cry for spending limits so they can steal an election. Not just donations but an election. They’ll make sure nobody can challenge their incumbency. Good luck trying to gerrymander rules while the whole nation knows you’re a bunch of crooks determined to cling on to office at all costs.
5 - I think that SeanT has the right to expect a fulsome apology for your barracking, considering some of the stuff you’re coming out with at the moment.
2. John L
Point of information: Gordon Brown cannot “sack” Wendy Alexander.
Her inept brother: yes. But Wendy: no.
Not that he actually wants to. That would expose Harman etc.
Effectively he can Stuart, like it or not, Scotland “reports” to Westminster in Unionist terms. She’s only staying to protect him and at his insistence.
6 - Er, fulsome doesn’t mean what you think it means
9 - Yes it does. Upon checking sources (internet dictionaries) it appears that it does have several meanings though.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3ba13882-a1f2-11…00779fd2ac.html
Treasury draws up Rock contingency plan
By Chris Giles and Jane Croft
Published: December 3 2007 23:02 | Last updated: December 3 2007 23:02
Treasury and Bank of England officials are drawing up contingency plans to pay Northern Rock’s depositors their money if the stricken lender has to be put into administration.
The plan would see the central bank buying Northern Rock’s deposits and swiftly paying the balances back to customers.
Northern Rock’s shareholders or bidders make demands on taxpayers’ money that the authorities regard as unreasonable, preparations are being finalised to withdraw the government’s financing of the bank and take control of savers’ deposits.
The Treasury and Bank stress that they want a successful acquisition of Northern Rock, but are aware they need a credible backstop in case negotiations over a sale fall through.
Another NuLabour fiasco ending in disaster. Who is next to go under?
Over to you ,Dr Cable.
Wiktionary decribes Fulsome
better IMHO
There’s an old legal dictum: ‘there is no confidence in an iniquity’.
That means an alleged breach of confidentiality is defendable on the basis that a breach of the civil or criminal law cannot be protected by an attempted shield of ‘confidence’.
It’s different if the Official Secrets Act applies, but that’s clearly not the case here.
Scottish Labour can’t and shouldn’t try to hide behind an attempted legal shield. The Old McBill should be sent home.
BTW why did Gordon call the failure of the General Secretary to declare as ‘unlawful’ (usually taken as breach of the civil law) when he should actually have called it ‘illegal’ (criminal offence): it sounds worse - because it is worse! Barrister Tony Blair wouldn’t have made the error!
12 - Well there we are John O. I’m obviously showing my age!
11 - Would the £xxbn of deposits be added onto the nearly 30bn of taxpayers cash chucked at NR to keep it going?
David Cameron on Wednesday:
“We on this side of the House are keen to work together to improve the standing of politicians in this country, and reform party funding in a way which commands the confidence of the General Public. Will the Prime Minister accept, however, that introducing new laws will bring no hope of succeeding in this aim if there is no serious effort made by one party to abide by those laws, and if there are no consequences to those laws being broken?”
David Cameron does have an interesting problem at PMQs today. It is interesting that Cameron has been majoring this week on the party funding aspects rather than the lost disks and Northern Rock. This seems like a mistake to me, but in the last few PMQs Cameron has clearly been following a very carefully thought-through strategy with strategically-motivated soundbites: “taking us for fools”; “not cut out for the job”. He has been seeking to lead public opinion in a direction that it would be inclined to go but would not inevitably follow, with considerable success.
I am very much drawn to John L’s approach for PMQs outlined in 2, though I completely disagree with him in his assessment of how PMQs have been going for the last few weeks (if anything I believe that PMQs have been more successful for Cameron than the consensus has it, for the reason that I have just given).
I must also differ from his comments over the respective ratings of Cameron and Brown. It is only in exceptional circumstances that a Leader of the Opposition bests a Prime Minister in head to head ratings, and for Cameron to come within one point of Brown within 5 months of Brown taking office is a very solid showing on his part.
“David Cameron does have an interesting problem at PMQs today”
He will if he turns up today…
(Sorry. Pedant alert…)
It’s been a long week already (blushes)
1 “Tabula rasa” Very early in the morning to be so erudite!
The law was broken.
There is no Mole.
The term is Whistle Blower.
Today is the opposition debate on party funding:-two big speeches then hours of rambling to an empty chamber, 30 mps max.
22 - I dunno. I reckon it could be very well attended, if half of what Nick says is true. Labour backbenchers will keen to make lots of noise and mention “Ashcroft” and “Midlands Industrial Council” at every opportunity. Bound to be a fair bit of abuse of the laws of Parliamentary Privilege as well!
11 - palpable nonsense (the plan, not you, HPS). As per a thread yesterday, NR customer deposits are already down from over £30bn at June to just over £10bn (on current estimates) now, said withdrawals funded primarily by BoE loans. At current rates of withdrawal, there will only be residual deposits to make good by the time this plan is effected.
And as for the idea that they could “withdraw government financing” - how? There are no liquid assets of note in the group now. The only way to repay the BoE loans would be a fire sale of the mortgage book, which is the one course of action guaranteed to lose the government £bns. Only the financially illiterate would even suggest such a plan.
18 Sorry, Bob, am I demonstrating lack of humour, or just ignorance - don’t get your (presumably) joke?
2 Can’thelp thinking that Grey suddenly realised (? too late?)there could be massive consequences to his pension by resigning, so panicked, and was found something to take him through to an agreed retirement date. Cynical? Me?
16 Yes, of course there should be consequences for those who break the law. But they should be calibrated according to how severe the break is. Anyone who has been remotely involved in this since the introduction of PPERA will know that there are constant breaches on all sides. The problem is we are caught up in the mediocracy here, and if a breach somehow involves some “top” (ie slightly famous) person, there are immediate calls for heads to roll. Otherwise no-one takes a blind bit of notice. And in fact people start describing it as “red tape” (therefore undesirable). Again, most people here know that the vast majority of declarations are done by unpaid volunteers, and sometimes a slightly less than competent or conscientious volunteer gets it wrong. I am sure this is what will have happened with the Deputy Leadership donations - although you have to suspect in Harman’s case there was more than a little desperation involved to cover the outgoings! No doubttheir “campaign teams” were essentially volunteers. The candidates themselves, of course, should have had a session about donations with the team before they set out, knowing that it could cause massive problems. One key issue here, in respect of GB and HH, is whether the Brown campaign team knew that Abrahams donations were concealed behind others. If they did know this, then clearly they are both in the nasty “brown” stuff, as a) GB didn’t take earlier action to stop it, and b) HH team should have been told of the illegality and not touched it with a bargepole!
22 In the circs, I am sure people will remain to hear if Vince Cable has any further witticisms!
25: PMQs is TOMORROW not TODAY
25
I’m sorry but if the law states I go to jail for wrong doing I make sure I do my paperwork properly - as in tax returns.
Your “reliance on volunteers” may very well be true.. BUT it’s the candidate’s job to ensure they use competent volunteesr and get it right - by checking returns.
Who are speaking in the opposition debate today? Presumably Cameron leads but will Gordon bother to turn up?
Anyone who has been remotely involved in this since the introduction of PPERA will know that there are constant breaches on all sides
Are there? Not denying it may be the case, but i can’t recall offhand of any cases in the press (unlike breaches of the Code for Member of Parliament (re: registering interests) which isn’t a legal code, AFAIK.
The whole purpose of the Law (not “rules”) was to prevent Sean Connery giving money to the SNP, and that other Scottish peer who lives in Spain from giving money to the Tories. Wendy Alexander knew that. Everyone knew that.
5
‘At PMQs I would certainly ask why Brown has hired back the man who presided over loss of 25 million bank accounts to the Cabinet Office.’
Just reconfirmation by Brown that however much you screw up, or whatever the scale of incompetence, you have a guaranteed job in the public sector complete with inflation proof pension.
28 - BTW I think people might be forgetting that the person most at legal risk in all this is a certain Peter Watt, formerly General Secretary of the Labour Party. That is what the proposed question in 16 was getting at when it referred to serious efforts to abide by the law.
29: I’ll be surprised if Cameron has the nerve to speak in the debate today! As alex suggests, there will be lots and lots of interventions if he does: we think the Tories have just been getting too easy a ride over funding (sorry, test, we’ll just have to disagree over this one). I may be doing him an injustice but if I read his approach correctly I think you’ll find he shunts it off to someone else.
IIRC the convention on this is that the Opposition decides how high a profile their debates should get - if they field Cameron, Brown will respond; if they field Davis, it’ll be Smith, etc. Obviously there are exceptions in case of illness, absence etc.
On Northern Rock, animal, it was inevitable that the Treasury should indicate to shareholders that there will be consequences if they refuse a reasonable offer that resolves the issue, and I think you’ll find that Osborne and Cable don’t disagree with that.
would-be Prescott successor arrested for indecency…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/humber/7126137.stm
I don’t think someone should lose their pension just because they have lost their job because of their personal, but not wilful, failings. Gross misconduct is a more dubious matter.
Certainly wouldn’t happen in the Private Sector.
34 - Surely it would be Straw?
36 Agree wholeheartedly. A pension is an asset that belongs to an individual, not to an employer or the State. A sacked worker should no more lose his pension than he should have any of his other posessions confiscated.
34 - What do you mean “getting an easy ride over funding”? Are you suggesting they are doing something that is not allowed? If so, why are you so keen for the law to be changed?
Apparently Paul Green is not impressed either according to this from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7126034.stm
He had asked for assurances his donation, a personal one by personal cheque were OK and got them. He is now upset at being involved in this mess.
new BBC story: “Donor hits back over illegal gift”
When The Herald first broke this story Alexander and her crooked cronies told the press a pack of lies about it being a corporate donation (to Combined Property Services, registered in Glasgow). What a shower of blatant liars and petty criminals. Wendy Alexander is essentially just an insecure, immature student politician, who has not got a clue about the real world.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1867076.0.0.php
O/T Lib Dem Voice is asking if the YouGov poll for the leadership was ‘technically flawed’ - http://www.libdemvoice.org/was-yougovs-leadership-poll-technically-flawed-1756.html
35. Sounds like the perfect replacement for Prescott
36. I have wondered whether this was the reason Kelly topped himself. Change your story or lose your pension would be a pretty scary threat.
41 - I take it she still hasn’t resigned?
34: ‘we think the Tories have just been getting too easy a ride over funding’
Which might explain why even though Labour knows what the Midlands Industrial Council is doing has been cleared by the Electoral Commission you are all still going on about it.
42 - Interesting. Clegg is miles ahead among younger Lib Dems.
32 - According to the Guardian story http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2221551,00.html he’s simply working out his “notice” period until the end of the year. He’ll then be unemployed until the summer, when he’ll turn 60 and will be able to start claiming his pension.
It’s a matter of employment contract law. He wasn’t sacked after disciplinary proceedings, so the termination of his employment is not immediate.
34. Nick Palmer MP. You may think the Tories have been getting an easy ride on funding, and you may be right but your strategy to fling mud around the chamber so it stick to all will backfire. Why? Because officers of the Labour Party have broken the law. Pure and Simple. Your officers will be prosecuted and may very well spend time in prison. The only question is which officers and when.
Unless you have evidence that the Tory party has also broken the law, your attacks on them are not comparable.
There seems to be a general trend from comments made by Labour politicians and cheerleaders that this law breaking is like speeding or doesn’t really matter. It does! You have to go all the way back to Lloyd George for a comparator.
34 - Mr Palmer, the Treasury already has the ability to enforce a winding up by virtue of its status as an unpayable creditor. What I object to is the disingenuous suggestion that the BoE could somehow “withdraw government financing” when NR does not possess the funds to repay this borrowing.
Yes, the BoE/government can (and indeed, must) use its legal rights to compel the shareholders to accept the solution that creates the smallest loss of public funds. No, it’s not going to be simple, and extreme care needs to be taken not to make an appalling situation even worse. This, on the face of it, seems to be another hamfisted intervention in a debacle already replete with errors.
34.”29: I’ll be surprised if Cameron has the nerve to speak in the debate today! As alex suggests, there will be lots and lots of interventions if he does: we think the Tories have just been getting too easy a ride over funding”
Sorry Nick, I think certain people have a real nerve to be still sitting in their posts at the moment considering we are looking at the possibility of 3 separate police investigations.
On a completely separate matter, I will be watching Des Browne’s performance in the HoC as well.
As the Scottish Labour looks for its mole, Benedict Brogan on “The reward of treachery”
Forgot to give link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7126034.stm
47 - Yep. It’s the sort of thing that sounds terrible, and opponents can make a lot of fun out of it, but is actually perfectly rational and sensible. It’s not like he’s been put in charge of anything at the Cabinet Office, he’s just pursuing “special projects”, and presumably still has a lot to offer in his short time remaining. People don’t get promoted to the top of Government Agencies without having some ability.
50 - Des Browne appeared yesterday. Has he got to come back again today?
alex at 39 - no, I’m suggesting they are exploiting glaring loopholes in the law, and that’s why the law should be changed. Anyone who has broken the *present* law should suffer the consequences, but that doesn’t oblige us all to ignore the problems that stem from unlimited spending. I won’t say more, as when I do people complain that I keep going on about it.
On a less contentious issue: I hadn’t realised that 18 Doughty St is being replaced by a new, non-partisan venture to be launched in the coming months. Iain Dale has left them but plans to launch a magazine, also non-partisan. Iain has of course been a very active Tory, but an amiable one who I think could do a good job running a non-partisan operation.
[38] Augustus Carp wrote a pension is an asset that belongs to an individual, not to an employer or the State. A sacked worker should no more lose his pension than he should have any of his other posessions confiscated. Surely a pension arises out of a contract, and if the contract says that the pension may be forfeit in certain circumstances, then it’s forfeit. (I doubt many pension schemes do contain such a provision, though.)
We are again dealing with the difference between fact and narrative. Public sector pensions in fact are part of a greater whole, the remuneration for working in the job. The narrative is quite different - employers see the staff pension fund as a great lump of money they could do with themselves (Robert Maxwell, for example) - and if they are, say, a Council leader, they may well dream of a change in the law (statute overrides contract, of course) to allow them to, say, hold a referendum to allow them to raid it to keep the Council Tax down.
I think Cameron is wrong to force the debate on party funding today. It muddies the waters. It allows Labour to attack the opposition parties, when they should be hanging their heads in shame. The debate (in Parliament and amongst the wider public) should eb about the breach of the existing criminal law - not how the law ought to be changed in order to allow the Labour Party to believe that their crimes were not all that serious.
49. I did agree with the decision of the government to guarantee depositors, but didn’t feel they should give Northern Wreck a blank check, which is what the BoE and the Treasury seem to have done. Now the longer this farce goes on the more money gets withdrawn by financial institutions and the greater potential liability for the government and the taxpayer.
55 - Only Council Leaders who are not members of the Scheme, presumably
The first today
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/humber/7126137.stm
Sad about the former Labour Mayor and Mayoress of Sefton being sent to prison for pocketing £37,000 to privately educate their daughter.
That was yesterday
55 Innocent, a bit of old fashioned rigorous Marxist analysis is required here. What is a pension? A pension is a worker’s unpaid wages. If there was no pension provision by the employer, the basic salary would be higher. That’s where Maxwell, the Government, the FSA and all the others come unstuck. If only they would acknowledge that the asset belongs to the workers, all the other problems would fade away. But a combination of paternalism and opportunism allows the forces of reaction to get their grubby mitts on other people’s money.
Just want to say that the govt handled the Sudan teacher row exceptionally well.
Clearly the FO did a good job and the poltiicians by sending Ahmed and Warsi made a real difference and kept it non-party political. Good stuff all round.
34 an idiotic post Nick I’m afraid. If you have evidence of criminal behaviour on the part of any Conservative donor or party officer please report it properly.
So far the only party where systematic criminality appears to be a problem is the Labour party.
Surely you should be shocked and appalled at Hain’s illegal hiding of donations. Offended by Harman’s illegal hiding of a mortgage used to fund her campaign. A deception she was assisted in by the Treasurer of the party. Surely you are upset that the leader of the Scottish Labour party is a self confessed law breaker?
Your party is being ripped apart by the behaviour of its senior members and your PM’s tenure is being dogged by the inept and embarrassing petty corruption of egomaniacal backroom boys and wilfully blind poltiicians - but for you it’s all the tories fault.
Unless Labour backbenchers actually try and get their party back you will see Labour out of power for a very long time. A first step must be you guys supporting Gordon by letting him know you will back a mass cull of the tainted parties such as Hain and Harman and Alexander.
He needs to know the party will be behind him or his natural cowardice will see him trying to sit it out and this will be more toxic in the long run.
re 53 yest today’s (emergency) ministerial statement is when he tells us why MOD penny pinching [mind you they’ve got billions to waste on Trident and flooing off Qinetiq on the cheap] is killing British troops
On Mrs Dales Diary. “Vince Cable Tops Performance Index Survey”
1256 people responded - mostly Tories, it is Tory blog and Vince came out ahead of Cameron.
Actually it was a v. badly designed survey .I gave people I’d never heard of (presumably Conservative Shadow cabinet members) 0 out of 10 when others gave them 5. I agree with Mike - These what do you think of so and so? Or such and such a policy? are not a lot of use.
53.It was reported earlier in the news that Des Browne would be making a statement about the RAF Nimrod crash inquiry due to be published later today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7126172.stm
Are the Police in Scotland investigating an admission of wrong doing by the Labour leader or the ‘theft’ of documents and subsequent leaks to the press.
Some interesting background on how to ‘book’ donations to a recent campaign. Seems to be quite a few ‘declaration-free’ sums just below the magic limit of £1k.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.1877997.0.0.php
Nick are you speaking in the debate this afternoon? - I have copies of the Bearwood accounts - No mention in them (yr to end March 1006) of Political Donations (breaking the companies act?) when the Electoral commission records £250,000+.
Also no mention of Ashcroft. I think it is as bad giving money to a company (especially one that is controlled, according to the account from Belize) to pass on as donations (i.e. not from trading profits) as to give to your secretary a la Abrahams.
64. The survey is an example of Range Voting, probably the fairest and most effective voting system yet devised.
Bees have been using it successfully for nearly 50 million years…
http://rangevoting.org/ApisMellifera.html
67 It is no good Icarus , Conservative posters on here are the 3 wise monkeys rolled into one when it comes to Ashcroft and Bearwood .
66. dr spyn
Yes, Strathclyde Police are meant to be conducting an investigation, but only after they received 2 requests (from a retired policeman, and an SNP researcher acting in a private capacity). Strathclyde Police did not act on the public admissions of criminal donations published widely in the media.
We have still to see actual evidence of Strathclyde’s evidence gathering though. If anyone living in Dowanhill happens to see the polis koncking at Wendy’s door, please let us know.
[60] Augustus Carp writes What is a pension? A pension is a worker’s unpaid wages.
Yes, that’s the fact of the matter.
The narrative goes like this: the public sector is hopelessly unbusinesslike (actually, there’s a reason for that, it’s called the difference between politics and economics, but let’s pass on that for now :)) therefore - and this is where we enter la-la land - people who work in the public sector are idle and overpaid. Therefore, grabbing their pension funds to cut “decent” people’s taxes is a morally justifiable expropriation.
The narrative appeals to the not inconsiderable section of the electorate who know that they are overtaxed but couldn’t tell you for the life of them by how much
Generally the charge is led by self-employed people who “forget” to file tax returns for a few years and then get a large bill! (Given the number of geeks on here, I bet we’ve got one or two of those skulking in the shrubbery :))
69 - Why don’t you report it to the police and settle the matter once and for all?
67: That’s cruel. Nick P already looks like he’s obsessive about Ashcroft without you helping him.
72 - Sorry Mark, that was of course addressed to Icarus at 67.
RodCrosby - Interesting article - But as it says its works for bees but it only takes one dishonest or confused Human to make rubbish of the system. As I said Mrs Dales diary is Conservative Blog.
Alex I have written to the Electoral commission (Lisa Klein, Director of Party and Election Finance). Lets see what she says.
54 - doughty street! LOL I had forgotten about their existence.
I presume no-one watches hence the make over?
76 - I’m not sure that it would necessarily be within the Electoral Commission’s competence or responsibility.
75. I’m afraid you misunderstand. The example compared dishonest voters under plurality (fptp), with dishonest voters under RV (range voting) and found that in the latter case, dishonesty doesn’t pay.
More info
http://rangevoting.org/
Then what is the EC for?
It is ironic that the Labour party is coming a cropper on its own “legal obesity” in expanding the number of laws that we can all be held liable for.
Mistakes such as taking £950 from an invalid donor have become criminal offences. The same is with minor speeding offences where you can lose your licence to drive, through 4 minor breeches on a long journey recorded by separate speed cameras.
£950 from a Jersey based person is too small a figure to be corrupting, £50,000 might be. Yet the offence seems to carry the same penalty and require the same level of checking.
David B Smith is very good in this month’s Lombard Street Research Shadow Monetary Policy Committee.
‘The widespread perception following Northern Rock and the missing Revenue and Customs computer disk affair, that the late Oliver Hardy is now at No. 10 Downing Street, and the late Mr Stanley Laurel is at No.11, … does nothing for the credibility of the wider policy framework or the attraction of Sterling for global investors.’
‘people who go on a credit binge will ultimatly suffer from a hangover, and that ‘hair of the dog’ treatment by central banks excerbates this addiction in the long-run, and may ultimately destroy the credibility of their counter-inflationary commitment.’
Though he does soften this a bit later in the article.
O/T Is there going to be an Interest rate cut this month? Last month they voted 7-2 against.
On Betfair a 0.5 % cut is 34.0, (33-1 in old money); 0.25 is avilable at 2.62 (13/8) and no change is 1.61 (8/13)
I am sure that that they will cut by at least a quarter though they they need at least a half to make any difference. What does anyone else think?
83 - some sectors of the economy are pleading for a cut but let’s not forget, the BoE has to control inflation. If inflation is still sat at close to 2% then any cut is unlikely, regardless of the effects it would have elsewhere in the economy (especially with increased spending at Christmas, yet more record oil prices etc)
83. No idea but the odds of a cut have gone up. The monetarists who are normally the ‘hawks’ are getting very worried about the collapse in money supply growth and might like a cut, but other economists will point to strong GDP growth and inflationary pressures to argue for hold.
81. But the figure of £ 950.00 is not accidental. Above £ 1000 the donation has to be made public, not just reported to the Electoral Commission.
What annoys me about Labour, and Nick Palmer MP on this site, is their pathetic attempts to spin their way out of trouble.
1. If you believe in honesty and democracy then you should be condemning the law breaking of your MPs and MSPs, not defending them.
2. The Conservative target seats campaign is legal, and it is financed legally. Smears that it is somehow ‘exploiting a loophole’ are pathetic; Labour wrote the law. It is open to the Labour Party to spend its money in target seats just like the Tories are doing; it chooses to spend its money in other ways.
“Has Brown lost the plot – and millions, too?”
“Brown and the union leaders are counting on it making no change to their income, but they cannot be sure. MPs are sullenly accepting the inevitable, but many believe it does not matter what contortions Brown goes through - he has already lost the plot for the next general election”
“They are just as bad as us,” said one MP. Hardly a winning slogan for the next election.”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?storyID=9706
I think this whole ’scandal’ has been blown out of proportion. Yes, Labour did break campaign finance law but it was a technical violation, nothing more.
OT : I’ve being using Samplemiser to generate daily vote share figures from the end of August to November 29th (and yes I know there is a huge controversy about using a WMA vs Rolling Average). I’ve got 90 data points for each of the 3 main parties and I’m curious about what notional majorities these three sets of figures would have produced. Obviously, I could manually input the figures into AW’s Swingometer or Martin Wells’ model. However, has anyone got any suggestions about how the process could be automated, using Excel?
Rachel Sylvester in Telegraph blogs a must read
“Is Gordon Brown losing a grip on the Labour Party? I only ask because a minister who has in the past been supportive of the Prime Minister told me yesterday that he thought he had only a fifty per cent chance of surviving until the election. He was the second person to say this to me in a week. I find it completely extraordinary that people should be talking like this already but I only report what I hear.
MPs are whispering that time is up already for Brown
The minister I was talking today said he thought that Mr Brown had only six weeks to turn things around - after that the mutterings would turn to shouts.“The mood in the Parliamentary Party is very bad,” he said. “People are very disappointed. I’m very disappointed. We expected more. At least Tony gave a clear sense of direction, nobody knows what Gordon really thinks. He’s got to show he can do it and fast.”
http://tinyurl.com/2kxhsz
It may well be the case that the current law on political donations is unfair and that the Conservatives have exploited loopholes in the law to their advantage. But the point is that the Conservatives have not, apparently, broken this law, while Labour clearly have done. Thus, an argument along the lines of “you’re as bad as we are” isn’t really a runner.
80 - Organising and investigation possible violations of the electoral process.
I would be surprised if the have any powers to investigate violations of the Companies Act.
89. It was not technical violation, it was a complete violation. The whole purpose of the law was to increase transparency. The crime that was committed was an attempt to avoid this transparency and it wasn’t Mrs Miggins giving a few quid is was Labour’s third largest donor for god’s sake.
87 Baskerville “It is open to the Labour Party to spend its money in target seats just like the Tories are doing; it chooses to spend its money in other ways.”
and there is the problem. Sainsbury and Mittal each give to Labour more than Ashcroft yet little/none of their money is handed out by the Central Labour party to their marginal/targets.
The Labour operation consumes too much at the centre and does not do enough to support the constituencies.
“Perhaps most worryingly of all for the Prime Minister, MPs seem almost resigned to defeat. “Perhaps we need a period in Opposition to sort ourselves out,” the minister said. “It’s starting to feel like John Major territory and nobody wants to be at the fag end of a Government.” It’s hard to believe that after all those years of plotting Mr Brown is himself the subject of a whispering campaign. How fickle politics can be.”
Yes, Labour did break campaign finance law but it was a technical violation, nothing more.
I’m not one for basting posters for defending their party, but that beggars belief - an astounding claim. The law is not there to allow judgements on motives. You might as well claim that any classic white-collar crime is merely a “technical violation”.
89/93 - it would be interesting to know what Matthew thinks would constitute a non-technical violation! I suspect it would encompass something that was covered by laws that predated the PPERA
Re 94, HF “and there is the problem. Sainsbury and Mittal each give to Labour more than Ashcroft yet little/none of their money is handed out by the Central Labour party to their marginal/targets.
The Labour operation consumes too much at the centre and does not do enough to support the constituencies. ”
A bit like how they run government then?
91-”Thus, an argument along the lines of “you’re as bad as we are” isn’t really a runner.”
Not sure, it doesn’t work for those who watch politics carefully. But I can only imagine the reaction of one voter, when he sees in the frontpage of any paper: “Pressure on the Tory leader to reveal truth on Tory millionaire’s tax”….
46 - sure about that alex? My anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. Although going on ‘The Political Punter’ the sound advice is to back the favourite in LD contests, I was saying this within 24hours of Ming resigning that it was Clegg’s to lose, and it is certainly swinging that way.
89 - so exploiting loopholes is worse than ‘technical violations’? As was posted above, instead of early release schemes for non-violent offenders because they can’t cope with the number of people locked up, let’s pardon all those imprisoned for merely ‘technical violation’ of the law to create more space in prisons. Reckon Gordon should campaign on that one Matthew?
100 - I was referring directly to the YouGov poll. The implication is that YouGov have heavily underweighted for older voters who are favouring Huhne (although YouGov shows them deadheated).
If labour had anything to throw they would have done it by now, as it stands they’re on the back foot.
89. Matthew. Basically you need a macro or vb code to take your triplets of party vote share, feed them to a forecasting engine, and write out the results. I am prepared to work with you on this. If you would care to email me your data…
rod [at] crosbytitanic [dot] co [dot] uk
re 84 meanwhile in the real world let’s not forget that the index used by the BoE is not the rate of inflation, which is currently over 4%
104 - I hope you’re not arguing for an increase in interest rates…
36, 38
Sorry I raised pension as an issue! I am not an expert, but what I do know is that when you take an earlier retirement than “full pension”, it is up to your employer whether or not it is made up to more (whether full or something less). I was speculating entirely that this was something that may have happened in the Grey case, but seemed possible as he was clearly closing in on retirement.
104 - since when have economists lived in the real world? Their job is to keep the RPI below 2%, regardless of whether or not that figure has any relevence to the real world
103. Thanks, I’ll do that.
A word of caution about “Rachel Sylvester in Telegraph” she does seem to attract semi-detached moaning MPs, whatever the party.
Probably very unrepresentative of the whole. She has another article talking up disquiet of Tory MPs which, beyond the usual duffers simply beggars belief.
99: Are people really that politically naive?
I suspect most of us have seen someone try the you’re as bad as we are’ argument and know it to be rubbish.
What Labour need is some form of closure on this issue not for it to run on but involving the other parties too.
110. yes it makes the person using it look childish and lacking in any other ideas
106 - there are a number of different issues in early retirement with public sector pensions. They are calculated on your final salary multiplied by your number of years service. In normal circumstances this can only be taken from age 60, but usually anyone departing on the instigation of the employer (ie. if they are sacked) after age 50 can take it immediately. To take it early after voluntary retirement/resignation would require the employers consent. Of course in both cases this pension would be lower than it would otherwise be, due to the shorter length of service.
Employers have the option to put in extra funds to bring that up to what would have be earned at age 60.
112* also taking pension at age 60 will be subject to further reduction if rule of 85 hasn’t been reached (now being abolished in local govt and teachers) but that is a further complicating issue.
110-”Are people really that politically naive?”
I don’t know.Imagine that you have to work all day, and you can’t really see the news. But in the morning you can see the papers frontpage, what would you think?(if you saw Abrahams in one week and Ashcroft in the other?)
Of course, none are relevant in the case of Paul Grey who is almost 60 and taking his pension from that date.
Labour have been trying to gain political capital out of the ashcroft money for years, and have always failed miserably.
114: From what I’ve heard people see it as an attempt at diversion.
As I said what Labour needs is to close the issue down not keep it going on.
I dont think that putting interest rates down would affect the price of oil and food, which are the main problems. What it would do is reduce the cost of mortgages and reduce the rate of inflation measured by RPI. This would keep wage increases down and in the long run help keep inflation low.
This worries me:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/386116/whats-wrong-with-nick-clegg.thtml
My wife heard the “Today” programme today and told me Chris Huhne came over a lot better and upto now she has been more of a “Cleggie”.
Why doesn’t Rachel Sylvester name the disloyal Minister?
She could do it by mistake - like Iain Dale with his embargoed poll, or drop a hint.
An interesting poll to mull over.
96: “I’m not one for basting posters for defending their party, but that beggars belief - an astounding claim. The law is not there to allow judgements on motives. You might as well claim that any classic white-collar crime is merely a “technical violation”.”
One David Boothroyd is pushing precisely this line on Iain Dale. Astounding. They must be really desperate.
117-I think it may work with some voters…
“As I said what Labour needs is to close the issue down not keep it going on.”
Can’t see they doing this…
121. SNP-Tory coalition looms..
If anyone in the Labour Party has broken the law, they have to pay for it just like anyone else. Even if you have broken the law through ignorance or by mistake that is no defence.
Interesting little piece in the ‘Bellylarf’ about one of PB’s running sores, Belizes’s own, Lord Ashcroft!
http://tinyurl.com/2l4ny2
Groupillon - Just listened to it - see what you mean, but too late have voted for Nick already.
121. SNP success would also change the dynamics of hung parliaments. As they already abstain on English-only bills, the more seats the SNP win , the better Cameron’s odds of winning a ‘working’ majority. If he can command a majority on Health, Education, Social Services, Work and Pensions, etc. that would be good enough.
So, for a little bit of fun.
Con 318
Lab 242
LibDem 50
SNP 15
Others 25
This would allow a Cameron administration a majority on all English issues, despite being 8 short of an overall majority.
125 With Ashcroft’s cash down to 4% of revenues, I would expect it to end altogether as the adverse publicity must be costing more than the 4% is worth.
Then who would Labour MPs blame for their dire situation? Gordon?
At present Ashcroft serves as a lightening rod within the PLP to attract the anger over their polls. Remove Ashcroft’s cash and Brown becomes the target.
128 oops should be “lightning” not “lightening”.
57
‘Now the longer this farce goes on the more money gets withdrawn by financial institutions and the greater potential liability for the government and the taxpayer.’
The NR fisaco may well go on a lot longer as funding for the Virgin bid is far from a done deal.
The banks (Citigroup & Deutsche) that have been approached by Virgin are apparently concerned at the scale of the funding required & business plan to grow NR’s savings to £30bn in 3 years.
Estimated that NR’s current deposits of £10 bn could fall to £2bn by month end.
128-Yesterday I made almost the same question:
How do you know that his cash is responsible for only 4% of the Conservatives donations?
131. david cameron said yesterday that it did.
132-Then, maybe you can answer the question that I did yesterday:
“A silly question:
When Cameron says that Ashcroft was responsible for only 4% of Conservatives donations, does he means his companies too? And does he include this:
“that is true, then perhaps Lord Ashcroft would like to explain why, of the £565,374 donated to the Conservative Party by Bearwood Corporate Services Ltd over the last two years (Q2 2005- Q2 2007) - BCS is known to be Ashcroft’s main vehicle for padding Tory coffers - only £212,163.50 is actually recorded by the Electoral Commission as having gone to Conservative Central Office?
The balance of these funds - £353,210.50 - is recorded by the Electoral Commission as having found its way in Tory coffers by way of a total of 56 individual donations given directly to Conservative Associations (including one case of a donation to a Federated body, Milton Keynes, covering two constituencies).”
( http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2007/10/18/show_me_the_money/ )
by Me December 3rd, 2007 at 7:28 pm “
Why does Nick and the rest of the labour party complain about Lord Sainsbury or Mr Mittal who both give more money to the Labour party than Lord Ashcroft?
I wonder?
128 I would hope that provided it is done legally Lord Ashcroft continues to give money to the party.
Labour have tried bullying and blustering and diversionary tactics. This displacement activity - of which Nick Palmer is a practitioner will not help the Labour party.
Only by facing up to the systemic problems within their organisation and the wilful blindness of so many senior figures to illegal funding can the PLP and the wider party have a hope of steadying the ship.
The current tactic of trying to blame everyone else is a common psychological response to such deep seated problems but it won’t help. Gordon needs courage and a clear idea of what needs to change within the Labour party structure. The start of that process needs to be a clear out of people who have admitted participating in illegal activity. Liability under PPERA is strict and ‘acting in good faith’ is no defence.
118. “I dont think that putting interest rates down would affect the price of oil and food, which are the main problems. ”
Yes it would.
Reducing interest rates has only one effect; it makes it cheaper to norrow money. Given that most adults either have a mortgage, or other credit debts, and that they tend to borrow more than they save, *any* interest rate cut leads to more money in their pocket.
How they spend the money is their decision, but I’d have thought that oil and food are two things MOST likely to increase. Economies/societies/individuals run on energy, remember?? Not white goods.
I know what *I* cut back on when the wallet is tight; the month-to-month unecessary expenditure. You??
For example;
I know that if I had more money, I’d travel to see my friends more, buy more petrol, take the train more often, burn my heating for longer. That’s all oil demand.
I know that if I had more money, I’d spend more on tasty food at Sainsburys each week and buy more luxury products. That’s all food demand.
Economics 1.01: Increased money = Increased oil/food demand = Increased prices (if there is a restricted supply, which there is) 3-6 months down the line for full effect.
I’m afraid I can’t agree with your argument Icarus.
From the register of members interests Harriet harman
4. Sponsorship or financial or material support
Donations to my campaign for election as Deputy Leader of the Labour Party received from:
Ken Follett, of Hertfordshire (personal donation). (Registered 20 April 2007)
Ken Follett, of Hertfordshire (personal donation). (Registered 11 June 2007)
Fiona Mctaggart MP (personal donation). (Registered 11 June 2007)
Vinod Popat, of West Hamilton (personal donation). (Registered 26 June 2007)
Michael V Sternberg, of London (personal donation). (Registered 28 June 2007)
Margaret Hodge MP (personal donation). (Registered 17 July 2007)
TGWU (Registered 18 July 2007)
UCATT (trade union) (Registered 18 July 2007)
Vera Baird MP (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
Stefanos Stefanou, of Hatfield (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
Janet Kidd, of Newcastle upon Tyne (personal donation) (Registered 18 July 2007)
Nicky Gavron, of London (personal donation). (Registered 18 July 2007)
Baroness Ashton (personal donation). (Registered 25 July 2007)
Anthony Hayes, of Lancashire (personal donation). (Registered 5 September 2007)
Muslim Friends of Labour. (Registered 13 September 2007)
GMB (Registered 13 November 2007)
119) listening to them this morning driving into work it took me 5 minutes to work out there were two people on the radio, Clegg hardly said anything that Huhne hadn’t just said, perhaps he had a late night.
136
And if price inflation on food and oil is driven by supply pressures?
Then interest rate increases - in the UK - will have zero impact.
As food and oil are effectively globally traded commodities.
Unnecessary expenditure are meals out, holidays, posh cars and jewellery etc. Food and energy are difficult to cut.
133 - What precisely do you want explaining, Me? Some of it is given to Conservative Central Office, some to Constituency Associations.
Or are you asking if the latter is included in the 4%?
126.Icarus - I am beginning to wonder if the leader election voting system should be changed and postal votes not issued until the “hustings” have all been completed when voters would be much more able to properly assess the candidates and be much better informed when they vote. The whole process may then take a little longer but I believe it would be fairer to the candidates and the voters and improve the Party’s chances of getting the best man for the job!
141-I’m asking if everything is included in the 4%
The Nick palmer line today is very much in line with what the spectator said last night here
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/385961/how-labour-will-try-and-fight-back.thtml
143-Alex-Thanks for at least trying to explain!
34 Nick Palmer MP, and Labour MPs in general. How refreshing it would be if Labour MPs could think back to why they entered politics in the first place. Was it so they could spend their days defending criminality? Was it so they could fill the airwaves with attacks on Tories? I hope not. If they’re not careful, Labour will be seen as doing just what Tory MPs were perceived as doing between 1992 and 97 - sticking up for sleaze instead of furthering the interests of the man on the street.
145 - I suppose you could go to the Electoral Commission site and add it up yourself
Or alternatively ring Conservative central office and ask for clarification.
In past elections I have been to vote in person in Sevenoaks (David Steel?) and Blaby (Paddy?). Were postal votes allowed in those days?