Category Archives: Voting

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

21 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Voting

MPs and the stinky swamp some of them inhabit

“Is politics a service, a duty, a means to represent the needs and aspirations of the people, or is it a launchpad for lucrative jobs in the private sector? George Osborne was terribly amused in the House of Commons yesterday: all this fuss over a trifling issue like the corruption of British democracy! Can’t we see he’s doing us a favour, having to suffer the indignity of being paid hundreds of thousands of pounds for multiple jobs rather than representing his constituents, all to make sure our “parliament is enhanced”, as he puts it? The sacrifice Osborne has made for all of us, having to be paid a juicy salary to further blur the distinction between media and political power, to make sure parliament is enriched by yet more MPs failing to devote themselves to the people who elected them.

There isn’t a sick bag big enough. It turns out he didn’t bother waiting for the advisory committee on business appointments to decide whether there is a conflict of interest first. Either they rule that there is an obvious conflict of interest in a serving senior Tory politician editing a daily newspaper, or the rules are a farce. Regardless, there are a number of lessons here. One is that some politicians think they are simply too brilliant to be reduced to the mere level of giving a voice to those they exist to serve, exploiting the prominence that comes with constituents selecting them as their representative and then making a packet out of it. Another was David Miliband, who made hundreds of thousands of pounds for speeches and corporate advisory roles when he returned to the backbenches: at least he had the dignity to eventually resign from his seat.

Then there is the revolving door of British politics. Public office gives you lots of marketable advantages: prominence, connections, knowledge of the inside workings of government. These can then be exploited by major corporations, wealthy individuals and media oligarchs to gain even more power over our corrupted democracy. Health ministers whose job it is to defend our sacred NHS end up working for private health firms who benefit from its privatisation; defence ministers end up working for arms firms bidding for government contracts. Our now foreign secretary was paid a quarter of a million pounds – described by Boris Johnson as “chicken feed” – for writing columns rather than, say, serving Londoners (although he did give up his regular column after becoming foreign secretary).”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/21/george-osborne-story-britain-ruled-never-ending-dinner-party

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

“The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised to such a level that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win”

“In poor democracies, votes are bought directly. In rich ones, money is spent to secure votes. Instead of being bribed, voters are subjected to a deluge of advertising, rounds of door-knocking and incessant social media messaging. Laws in richer democracies are meant to be tightly enforced. A check on UK election spending is that contributions have to be declared correctly. That is why the decision to fine the Conservative party a record £70,000 for “numerous failures” in accurately reporting campaign spend at the 2015 general election and three by elections in 2014 is so important. It is a wrong compounded by cover-up. The Tories “unreasonably” failed to cooperate with the Electoral Commission, which acted after a Channel 4 News report.

Foolishly, David Cameron displayed not a hint of contrition, claiming he had won “fairly and squarely”. He ran a shambolic operation. It’s too early to say whether a criminal offence has been committed. Any prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is dishonesty not just non-compliance. The cost of perverting elections will have to be raised so that parties do not think it is a price worth paying to win. Money buys access to shape policies. Without strict rules and harsh penalties, politicians will be tempted to win office by mortgaging the future to an investing elite.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/the-guardian-view-on-tory-election-spending-its-a-scandal?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, County councillors, DCC, Democracy, General Election, Spin, Voting

Election purdah: expect LOTS of good news and promises next week!

Purdah for the local county council elections (and possibly a General Election if rumours are to be believed) will begin on Monday 27 March 2017. Be aware NO council (not just the county council) can ignore purdah.

You can find a useful guide here:

http://www.local.gov.uk/documents/10180/6869714/L15-91+Unpacking+Purdah_04.pdf/c80978b9-dc0b-4eee-9f81-49bd47afeb2d

From this guide:

“This means that:

• In general you (this means councils and councillors) should not issue any publicity which seeks to influence voters (an exception being situations covered by legislation or regulations directing publication of information for explanatory purposes).
• Particular care should be taken during the pre-election period to abide by the Act.
• Consider suspending the hosting of third party material or closing public forums if these are likely to breach the codes of practice.
• Do not publish any publicity on controversial issues or report views on proposals in a way which identifies them with individual councillors or groups of councillors.
• Publicity relating to individuals involved directly in the election should not be published unless expressly authorised by statute.
• You are allowed to publish factual information which identifies the names, wards and parties of candidates at elections.

Although this new code supersedes the previous versions and may seem less specific, in practice your conduct should be similar to previous elections.
What this means in practice:

Publicity is deemed as “any communication, in whatever form, addressed to the public at large or to a section of the public.”

The first question to ask is ‘could a reasonable person conclude that you were spending public money to influence the outcome of the election?’ In other words it must pass the ‘is it reasonable’ test. When making your decision, you should consider the following:

You should not:
• produce publicity on matters which are politically controversial
• make references to individual politicians or groups in press releases
arrange proactive media or events involving candidates
• issue photographs which include candidates
• supply council photographs or other materials to councillors or political group staff unless you have verified that they will not be used for campaigning purposes
• continue hosting third party blogs or e-communications
• help with national political visits (as this would involve using public money to support a particular candidate or party). These should be organised by political parties with no cost or resource implications for the council.

You should also think carefully before you:
• Continue to run campaign material to support your own local campaigns. If the campaign is already running and is non-controversial (for example, on issues like recycling or foster care) and would be a waste of public money to cancel or postpone them, then continue. However, you should always think carefully if a campaign could be deemed likely to influence the outcome of the election and you should not use councillors in press releases and events in pre-election periods. In such cases you should stop or defer them. An example might be a campaign on an issue which has been subject of local political debate and/or disagreement.
• Launch any new consultations. Unless it is a statutory duty, don’t start any new consultations or publish report Findings from consultation exercises, which could be politically sensitive.

and

Council Notice Boards:

Councils are required to publicise details of the election and how to register to vote. Material relating to wider political issues should not be posted on of official notice boards which may be seen by members of the public. This includes publicity issued by, or on behalf of, a trade union.”

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

19 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Hugo Swire, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Standards Committee, Voting

“I feel sorry for the people of Tatton – I hear their MP is just too busy to care”

The above quote from Labour MP, Jess Phillips.

But why only Tatton?

Here in Devon we have our own Hugo Swire who, after telling us all how sorry he was not to be able to speak for us when he worked at the Foreign Office but then, when sacked by Mrs May, immediately took the post of Chairman of the Conservative Middle East Council.

We also have Conservative West Devon and Torridge MP Geoffrey Cox – in whose area the North Devon District Hospital is under threat of closure – who has to juggle his constituency problems with being a successful barrister. According to the Daily Telegraph, based on the declarations in the register of members’ interests, his extra-parliamentary work was worth £820,867 in 2014 or 12 times his annual MP salary. Not to mention his little problem with an alleged tax avoidance scheme.

And Owl is sure there are many many more MPs with their snouts in many conflicting job troughs – and other conflicts – for example those with large shareholdings in private health care companies.

But people vote for them again and again.

As Ms Phillips says:

“The column I wrote last week about how the ex-chancellor was treating being an MP as a hobby after the announcement of his one-day-a-week £650,000 job working for BlackRock Investments is not even in the recycling yet (thanks to years of austerity cutting the collections). Yet, just days later, he’s acquired another job he is apparently going to do on the other four days a week. Next week you can look forward to my column announcing that Osborne has a Saturday job presenting Match of the Day and a Sunday job in the clergy. He is as qualified for those jobs as he is to be the editor of the Evening Standard.

The conflicts of interest are so numerous that my brain has no time to think of them before another pops up. I shall try to devise a list as an aide-memoire for the similarly baffled. It is not OK for politicians to be the editors of newspapers. Not in the UK at least. It’s all the rage in Russia, which is perhaps why the Standard’s proprietor, Evgeny Lebedev, thought nothing of it. No one who read the Evening Standard’s coverage of the London mayoral race would be surprised that it is of the Tory persuasion. It showed then that it was a fan of a rich boy with no talent by supporting Zac “God loves a trier” Goldsmith.

People might think it’s no biggy, it’s not the BBC, it doesn’t have to be neutral. No, it doesn’t, but it does have to at least make some commitment to reporting facts and holding to account those in positions of power. How can George Osborne ever be trusted to do this?

At the moment, when the press is getting a global drubbing from people shrieking “fake news”, how will we be able to trust anything the Standard says? For all those hard-working news reporters and political journalists fighting to be trusted and maintain an important part of our democracy, this is a smack in the face. As pravda means truth in Russian, anything political written in the Standard must now be judged as equally “true”.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/19/george-osborne-editor-evening-standard-constituents

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

18 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Voting

“The Prime Minister, the Tatler Tory, his Conservative party Battlebus mistress and a VERY revealing election expenses leak”

“The [Conservative] party was fined £70,000 last week after an Electoral Commission inquiry found it had failed to record correctly £275,000 spent during the 2015 general election and at by-elections like Rochester.

An email showing how ‘Tatler Tory’ Mark Clarke and his mistress ran the Conservative Party battlebus campaign at the centre of an election expenses row was leaked last night.

In the email, Clarke tells MPs his battlebus will not affect their election expenses because it ‘is accounted for out of central campaign spend’. …

… In it, he says the campaign has the ‘full financial support of CCHQ (Tory HQ)’ and has been ‘signed off’ by election chief Lynton Crosby and party chairman Lord Feldman.

On ‘expenses and funding,’ Clarke says: ‘Our costs are met by donations contributed and declared via CCHQ. We fund all activist refreshment. This is not an election expense. We fund all the hotel and transport. This is an election expense and is accounted for out of central campaign spend.’

He advises MPs to contact battlebus campaign aide India Brummitt for further information. She can be seen in the audience in a film of Mrs May – then Home Secretary – in a crowded bar at Clarke’s ‘RoadTrip’ during the Rochester by-election, which the Tories lost to Ukip’s Mark Reckless. Mrs May tells Clarke: ‘What you are doing is absolutely tremendous.’ She leads a round of applause for him.” …

… The Electoral Commission report said the Tories were likely to have ‘understated the value’ of their spending on the three by-elections.

It said the party’s failure to accurately report its expenses meant there was a ‘realistic prospect’ that candidates gained a ‘financial advantage’ over opponents. Former Tory treasurer Simon Day was reported to the police and could face jail if found guilty. Up to two dozen Tory MPs could face charges of electoral fraud.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4327812/Prime-Minister-Tatler-Tory-Conservative-party-mistress.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

17 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, General Election, Scrutiny, Voting

Election spending (2) … just to make it crystal clear where the buck stops

“Managing campaign spending

Authorising and paying campaign spending

Only the ‘responsible person’ registered with us and people authorised in writing by the responsible person can incur campaign spending.

For example, someone may be authorised to spend money on particular items, or up to a particular amount.

These rules are in place to make sure that spending can be controlled and accurately recorded and reported.

You should make sure that your volunteers and campaigners know who can and cannot incur costs.”

Click to access to-campaign-spend-rp.pdf

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Sleaze, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Conservative Party fined laughable £70,000 for breaking election rules

Owl says: £70,000 – laughable. Four pots of Hugo Swire’s honey (allowing for inflation) auctioned off at the next Tory fundraiser will sort that out. £700,000 better, £7 million best! AND if the party can’t keep track of this sort of accounting – what sort of mess is it making regionally and nationally!

“The Electoral Commission has fined the Conservative Party £70,000 over “significant” election campaign expenses issues.

The independent elections watchdog said the party had made “numerous failures” in reporting its expenses for the 2015 General Election and three by-elections in 2014.

It has also referred one matter, relating to the party’s treasurer declaring he had examined the return and believed it to be complete and correct, to the Metropolitan Police.

The investigation found the party’s 2015 General Election spending return was missing payments worth at least £104,765.

Separately, payments worth up to £118,124 were either not reported to the Commission or were incorrectly reported. …

… Commission chairman Sir John Holmes said the Tories’ failure to follow the rules “undermined voters’ confidence in our democratic processes” and said there was a risk political parties were seeing such fines as “a cost of doing business”.

The fine comes after a dozen police forces announced they had sent files to the Crown Prosecution Service as part of a probe into the Conservatives’ 2015 election expenses.

The allegations centre around whether spending on hotels for visiting activists and certain campaign material was incorrectly registered as national rather than local spending.

At least three Tory MPs have been quizzed by police investigating whether election finance laws were broken in the 2015 contest.

Sir John said: “Our investigation uncovered numerous failures by a large, well-resourced and experienced party to ensure that accurate records of spending were maintained and that all of the party’s spending was reported correctly.

“The rules established by Parliament for political parties and their finances are there to ensure transparency and accountability.

“Where the rules are not followed, it undermines voters’ confidence in our democratic processes, which is why political parties need to take their responsibilities under the legislation seriously.”

He went on: “This is the third investigation we have recently concluded where the largest political parties have failed to report up to six-figure sums following major elections, and have been fined as a result.

“There is a risk that some political parties might come to view the payment of these fines as a cost of doing business; the Commission therefore needs to be able to impose sanctions that are proportionate to the levels of spending now routinely handled by parties and campaigners.”

Responding to the investigation, a Conservative Party spokesman said the party had complied fully with the investigation and will pay the fines imposed.

“As we have consistently said, the local agents of Conservative candidates correctly declared all local spending in the 2015 general election.”

He said the party’s campaign headquarters “accepted in March 2016 that it had made an administrative error by not declaring a small amount constituting 0.6 per cent of our national spending in the 2015 election campaign.

“This error was subsequently corrected and the Party has since improved its accounting practices, reporting structures and staff guidance. Even taking this into account, the Conservative Party still considerably underspent the statutory national spending limits for the 2015 general election.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-party-fine-tory-tories-electoral-commission-70000-election-campaign-expenses-a7632516.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

16 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Postal votes and election rules – a worrying anomaly in the rules

Electoral rules currently allow political parties to invite voters to send postal ballot application forms (not the actual completed ballot papers) to political party offices rather than to the local authority conducting the election. As the website Skwawkbox says below, this would appear to be potentially fraught with the risk of facilitating fraudulent applications, but it is currently permitted.

However, political parties are not allowed to encourage voters to do this. In fact, the Postal Vote Code of Conduct instructs them to discourage it by making the preferred return address that of the official Electoral Returning Officer.

However, blogsite Skwawkbox:
Yet another Tory electoral breach – the SKWAWKBOX needs your help

gives an example where a local Tory office of a nearby authority (Somerset) gave its own address as its first option and that of the Electoral Returning Officer as the second option. With no address given for the ERO.

From Skwawkbox.

“A local resident wrote to Somerset County Council’s Strategic Manager of Governance and Risk about this breach and received this response:

“Thanks for sending a scan of the letter. Having studied the Code of conduct for campaigners in Great Britain and spoken to the Electoral Commission the letter should have the Electoral Services Office as the primary address for return of the form. The letter can include a secondary address.

Clearly this is not the case with the example that you sent through. Campaigners can receive completed forms and should then forward them to the Electoral Registration Officer’s address within two working days of receipt.

In the light of what you have sent through Pat Flaherty as County Returning Officer has raised this formally as an issue with the Conservative Party elections agent to point out what needs to happen under the requirements of the Code.”

As Skwawkbox says:

“This may seem like a small ‘technicality’, but it’s in such seemingly insignificant areas that space for election-tampering can exist – affecting the wellbeing of thousands and even millions of our citizens. … “

Skwawkbox is asking its readers to check for similar errors on party political websites to see what they say about arrangements for postal vote application forms and to let it know of any potential infringements of the Code of Conduct.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

15 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal – Devon and Cornwall info passed to Crown Prosecution Service

“Twelve police forces have passed files to the Crown Prosecution Service over allegations that Conservatives broke campaign spending laws at the last election, after a 10-month investigation by police forces across the country.

The revelation is likely to increase concern in Downing Street and the Conservative party about the seriousness of the investigations, which could affect several sitting MPs and even lead to election results being declared void if there are prosecutions.

The CPS said it had been passed files from Avon and Somerset; Derbyshire; Cumbria; Devon and Cornwall; Gloucestershire; Greater Manchester; Lincolnshire; the Metropolitan police; Northamptonshire; Nottinghamshire; West Yorkshire; and Staffordshire police.
Continue reading →

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Police (local), Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal – update

“Conservative MPs embroiled in an election expenses row have accused party officials of trying to dodge blame.

Two dozen Tories are understood to be under police investigation over claims they overspent on their local campaigns during the 2015 general election in which spending limits are tight.

Karl McCartney, MP for Lincoln and one of those under investigation, wrote a bombshell email to the party chairman attacking the party’s handling of the controversy linked to its election “battle bus”.

In it, he wrote: “We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ (Conservative Campaign Headquarters) did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media.”

Sky News can reveal:

:: An email sent to 30 Tory MPs claims the party has withheld a draft report it has already received from the Electoral Commission into the issue.

:: A second email to the party chairman claims Conservative Central Office was to blame for the expenses “mess”.

:: The MPs held a showdown meeting with party chairman Patrick McLoughlin on Tuesday afternoon to air their concerns.

:: MPs implicated in the row said they felt “scared” about the outcome of the investigations and believe Downing St is worried.

The spending row centres on the Tories’ use of an election battle bus to campaign in key seats, and whether spending on hotels and campaign material were incorrectly registered as national spending, which has much higher limits than local spending.

Meanwhile, Kent Police refused to confirm reports Tory MP Craig Mackinlay, who defeated ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage in Thanet South, was questioned under caution last Friday over his expenses.

If Conservatives are found to have committed any offence, their political opponents could ask for the contests to be rerun.

Mr McCartney, a justice of the peace who was elected in 2010 and fought off a challenge from Labour in 2015, is said to be acting as an informal “shop steward” to the group of mainly newly-elected MPs implicated.

He wrote to colleagues last week saying Conservative Central Office (CCHQ) had received a draft report from the Electoral Commission, which has been investigating party spending for a year.

Mr McCartney said this information came from a Conservative-party appointed solicitor who is acting for the group, but claimed the contents of the report had not been shared with MPs.

However, a Conservative source denied officials had received the report.

Mr McCartney wrote: “I have made my disquiet and disbelief at this course of action pretty clear in a blunt email to the party chairman and the whips office overnight.”

In that email, also seen by Sky News, and addressed to Mr McLoughlin who is in the cabinet, he wrote that his colleagues “feel completely cast adrift by CCHQ/whips/the parliamentary party and left to fend for themselves”.

He added: “At what stage do you think you (the Party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the Party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making…need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”

Mr McCartney asks why MPs were not warned about the Electoral Commission report, expected to be made public in the coming weeks.

He said none of the MPs have been questioned by the Commission and asked: “Who else has had a copy? And what are the ramifications of its current version and what if it accepts your feedback and rewrites whole swathes of their draft?”

He asked the party chairman for guidance on dealing with media inquiries, saying: “We do need a press release for national and local media interest. I would rather sing from the same hymn sheet.”

On his website, he wrote: “The Conservative Party advised us that the so-called campaign ‘battle buses’ were, as at previous general elections and in keeping with the practice of both the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats, a national campaign expense.

“This meant that they were not to be declared in our own election expenses.”

Another of the MPs in the group, elected in 2015, and under police investigation said they firmly believed the spending was correctly registered.

The MP said: “People are scared, this has been hanging over us for more than a year. I absolutely believe it was legitimately national spending in my case.

“Our solicitor which they have paid for agrees that the law is what it is and we haven’t broken it. But I think CCHQ have been quite complacent about how far it would go. No 10 is now very concerned about it.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

http://news.sky.com/story/expenses-scandal-tory-mps-say-party-officials-covering-own-backsides-10801909

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

14 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Police (local), Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

Election expenses scandal: some Tory MPs in panic mode

Our current Police and Crime Commissioner, Alison Hernandez, was election agent for MP Kevin Foster [Torbay] who took the seat from Lib Dems with a majority of 3,286 at the last election with just over 40% of voters choosing him.

http://www.itv.com/news/westcountry/2017-01-04/police-chief-interviewed-over-election-expenses-scandal/

“A Conservative MP has been interviewed under caution as part of an ongoing police inquiry into whether the party overspent in its campaign for South Thanet in the 2015 general election, when they were up against Nigel Farage.

Craig Mackinlay, the MP who won the seat against the former Ukip leader, is said to have spent about six hours speaking to police about their investigation, which has been going on for about a year.

Asked about the interview, a Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.” Mackinlay did not reply to a request for comment.

There is growing panic in the Conservative party about the scale of police probes into election spending, which could affect dozens of MPs. A separate investigation by the Electoral Commission into whether the national party broke election spending limits is also under way and expected to come to a head within weeks.

The allegations, first uncovered by Channel 4 News, are that spending in marginal seats on a battlebus tour and teams of party officials was wrongly recorded as national, rather than local spending.

The penalties for wrongly declaring local elections are steep, with possible criminal charges for MPs and their election agents, and results can be declared void.

It is understood police could meet the Crown Prosecution Service as early as 21 March to discuss bringing a possible charge in relation to South Thanet, where Farage was narrowly beaten by Mackinley.

Nigel Farage says he would stand for election again in South Thanet
Farage, the former Ukip leader, has already said he may be interested in rerunning in the Kent coastal seat if it there were to be a prosecution and byelection.

Kent police said: “The investigation into this complex matter is ongoing and officers continue to follow lines of enquiry. Therefore it would not be appropriate to comment further.

“Officers from Kent police continue to work with the Electoral Commission as the investigation continues.”

Separately, a group of Conservative MPs under investigation over their election expenses are growing increasingly frustrated at the lack of support from the party’s headquarters.

One has sent an email to Tory HQ accusing the party of keeping secret a draft of the Electoral Commission report from MPs whose local spending returns are under investigation.

In an email seen by Sky News, Karl McCartney, a Tory MP [Lincoln] under investigation who is helping other MPs, accused party officials of trying to save themselves rather than help those who were elected.

He wrote that his colleagues “feel completely cast adrift by CCHQ/whips/the parliamentary party and left to fend for themselves”.

He added: “At what stage do you think you (the party) might inform us that another media s***storm is coming? We didn’t create this mess, the clever dicks at CCHQ did, and I don’t see their professional reputations being trashed in the media much.”

“The initial cock-ups, ‘strategy’ and ineptitude with regard to this issue that has so negatively impacted our: lives, standing in our communities, standing amongst colleagues, families and our regard for particular parts of the party centrally, and were all of CCHQ’s making … need to stop.

“We are the ones who are now (and since the beginning as individuals have been) in the media spotlight and it might have been a little more reassuring and collegiate if the powers that be in our party perhaps tried to be a little bit more supportive and less interested in covering their own backsides.”

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/14/conservative-mp-craig-mackinlay-interviewed-under-caution-over-election-spending

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

11 Mar 2017

Posted under

DCC, Democracy, East Devon Alliance, Sidmouth/ Sidford/ Sidbury, Voting

East Devon Alliance’s Paul Arnott challenges Stuart Hughes

“A leading figure in the East Devon Alliance (EDA) is to challenge Sidmouth’s long-standing Tory representative for the town’s seat on Devon County Council (DCC) – with a Labour candidate also standing.

The alliance is fielding three independents to challenge seats in Sidmouth, Seaton and Colyton and Axminster – and the trio have presented a united voice in their promise to fight for transparency and NHS services.

Independents are hoping to see a repeat of their success in the district council elections of May 2015 – when they gained 10 seats across the region and ousted six Conservative councillors in the Sid Valley alone.

EDA Paul Arnott, former chaoorman of the group, will challenge Councillor Stuart Hughes for Sidmouth’s county council seat in the elections on May 4.

An East Devon resident of 20 years and former parish councillor, Mr Arnott is a father-of-four who runs a television production company, along with his wife Lydia, and has had three books published.

As a ‘passionate and outspoken’ defender of the NHS in East Devon, he promises to fight at county level to address the ‘major issues of health, social care and education’ which, he says, are ‘now a matter of urgent concern’.

The EDA says it supports independent candidates who are responsible, and answerable, to the electors, rather than a national party machine.

A spokesman said: “Like all local authorities, DCC is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and jurisdiction. Once elected, Independent EDA county councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.”

Cllr Hughes – who is also the cabinet member for highways and represents Sidmouth at town and district level – confirmed he will stand for re-election as a Conservative. He pledged to provide a strong voice for the Sid Valley and give 100 per cent in his community leadership role, working with residents, groups and the town and district councils.

Cllr Hughes added that he will continue to champion the cycle and footpath links across the Sid 
Valley, fast implementation of the town’s flood alleviation scheme and work on the traffic management plan and Alma Bridge.

Labour’s Ray Davison has also confirmed he will be standing as a candidate for Sidmouth and believes the Tories will be under fire in the upcoming county elections because of the ‘refusal’ by central Government to provide more social care funding.

The father-of-three has lived in East Devon for more than 30 years and pledges to focus on issues of education, transport and education investment in the region.

Further candidates were yet to 
be announced.”

http://www.sidmouthherald.co.uk/news/east_devon_alliance_s_paul_arnott_to_challenge_tory_stuart_hughes_for_county_seat_1_4926330

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Election expenses scandal worsens thanks to whistleblowers

“Over the past year, a Channel 4 News investigations team has unearthed compelling evidence that the Conservative Party may have broken election laws to fight three by-elections in 2014 and win power in the 2015 General Election.

The Battlebus 2015 campaign sent a fleet of coaches filled with Conservative activists into 29 marginal seats in the final weeks of the 2015 General Election – to persuade voters on the doorstep.

The whole Battlebus campaign is now under investigation – after allegations that Conservative candidates may have broken election law by failing to declare the costs on their local spending returns.

The Party has repeatedly said the spending on the bus tour should have been declared nationally not locally.

But two Tory whistleblowers have spoken to Channel 4 News and cast doubt on that claim.

They say the party is “lying” about what happened on the Battlebus – and is now engaged in a “cover-up”.

Battlebus activists

Gregg and Louise Kinsell volunteered for the Conservatives in the final few days of the “Battlebus 2015” campaign in the South West, working in four key seats for the party.

Louise says that: “We worked for the local candidates and MPs to ensure that they won their seat and we were sent wherever they thought we would help.”

The Conservatives insist the Battlebus was a national event, with volunteers only promoting the party and not specific local candidates. As such the Battlebus was only declared in the Party’s national campaign expenses.

Last year, David Cameron said: “Lots of political parties have these bus tours – you know buses that go round different constituencies and this is a national expense.”

But the Kinsells say they were tasked with promoting local candidates,
including being given local briefing papers and seat-specific scripts, being furnished with specific voter data and distributing local leaflets.

Gregg said: “If people are saying, and the MPs concerned in these areas are saying it was part of a greater expense nationally for the Conservatives, that is a lie and an obvious falsehood. In that case I feel especially motivated to go to the police and go to the Electoral Commission.”

“So they are telling lies about what we did – and we duped people on the doors, it feels like cheating.”

All four seats visited by the Kinsells on the Battlebus tour were won for the Tories and the party took 14 seats in the South West in total, wiping out their Liberal Democrats coalition partners from the region.

Louise Kinsell said, “We went down and worked for individual candidates who then won their seat. If they hadn’t won their seat, the Conservatives may not have won the election.”

Police investigation

The Battlebus tour is currently under investigation. Under election laws, any costs incurred to promote a candidate, must be declared on local candidate spending returns. It’s a criminal offence for the candidate and agent to knowingly make a false declaration.

Channel 4 News has previously revealed that hundreds of thousands of pounds in Conservative campaign spending may not have been properly declared.

And the Kinsells have revealed more examples of what they believe are questionable campaign spending.

The Battlebus group stayed at the Jury’s Inn in Plymouth. Channel 4 News has seen a hotel bill for 29 rooms at the Jury’s Inn totalling £2,520. But that hotel does not appear to have been declared in the national expenses.

The Battlebus tour was then accommodated at the Premier Inn and Travelodge in Hayle, Cornwall. Again, these hotels do not appear to have been accounted for in the Conservative national returns.

The Conservative Party has previously stated that the failure to declare the hotels used on the Battlebus campaign as an “administrative error”.

In the nine seats visited by the Battlebus in the South West, the Conservatives candidates declared that they had spent below the legal limit, as governed by electoral law.

However, Channel 4 News has calculated the cost of the buses, hotels, and staff for the Battlebus tour in the region amounts to £2,460 for each seat visited. If the activists took part in local campaigning, this cost should have been declared on local spending returns.

The Kinsells say there is now a “code of silence” amongst Party activists about what took place on the Battlebus tour.

“It has shocked me that they have been this arrogant and think they can get away with it.”

The Kinsells say they feel betrayed by the Conservatives. “We were on the bus. We know what happened. We know what we were doing. And they know what we were doing.

Gregg Kinsell said: “I feel like there’s been a betrayal. We were unwitting participants in a huge betrayal. That’s how I feel.”

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

None of the candidates responsed to requests for comment.

https://www.channel4.com/news/tory-whistleblowers-election-expenses-conservative-party-battlebus

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Democracy, Electoral Commission, Mark Williams CEO EDDC, Scrutiny, Transparency, Voting

How to make electoral registration easier (if your electoral registration officer plays fair)

Owl is not convinced that this government or even EDDC – wants a more inclusive electoral register – students were mostly against Brexit and they often vote for minority parties.

It will be interesting to see what efforts our electoral registration officer (CEO Mark Williams) will make to ensure that East Devon registers more voters – after the fiasco at the last election, where frantic efforts had to be made at the last-minute to find 6,000 voters who had dropped off the electoral roll due to changes in procedures authorised by Mr Williams but which very much displeased the parliamentary committee to which he was summoned to explain his unilateral changes.

“Before the Lords voted against Brexit yesterday in the House of Lords, the government was defeated on another important democratic issue: voter registration. This passed largely without comment by the media (and went unmentioned in the BBC’s Yesterday in Parliament, for example). It is unsurprising that voter registration rarely receives the same level of coverage as Brexit, but it is nonetheless a vital issue.

Up to 8 million people were thought to be missing from the electoral register in 2015. Research shows that citizens were turned away from the polls at the Brexit referendum because they were not registered to vote.

Registration levels have been declining for a long time. It was long forecasted that this decline would continue under individual electoral registration (IER). The introduction of online voter registration and voter outreach work from organisations such as Bite the Ballot did much to address this in the run-up to the EU referendum. But now the referendum is past, we should expect the completeness of the register to slide away again.

One group that research predicted would be hardest hit was students. Under the old household electoral registration system, they were automatically enrolled by their university administration. Although data on the number who have fallen off the register is hard to track, we know that young people were especially affected by IER. It was therefore a mistake that the Electoral Administration Act of 2013 did not provide for a suitable student registration to be put in place when the old system of household registration was abolished.

Yesterday, an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill was introduced to require universities to offer students the opportunity to register to vote at the point of enrolment or re-registration as a student at their university. A successful example of a scheme like this was piloted at Sheffield University, where student registration rates soared to a quoted 76% of its eligible students registered, compared to 13% at similar-sized institutions. The amendment offers an opportunity to save significant funds too. The head of registration services at Sheffield Council has confirmed that the cost of registering a student with this model is just 12p, rather than £5. Cardiff Council calculates that using this scheme for combining enrolment with electoral registration has saved it some £63,000.

The amendment was passed, against the government, by a majority of 200 to 189.

Beyond students: towards a more inclusive democracy

The principle behind the amendment is a simple and powerful one. Make voter registration easy and convenient and more people will register. If you combine registration with other administrative jobs, such as paying council tax or renewing a driving licence, the paperwork-adverse citizen will be more likely to complete it. It is important that measures therefore go beyond supporting student registration and that the idea is extended to other public services to engage the wider public.

There is a powerful research and international practice to suggest that this works. In the US, a federal Act was passed in the 1990s to expand the number of locations and opportunities whereby eligible citizens could apply to register to vote. In particular, citizens were to be given a voter registration application when they applied for or renewed a driver’s licence (hence it became known as the ‘Motor Voter Act’), or when applying for (or receiving) services at certain other public offices. Nearly one third of registrations are submitted in the US at motor vehicle agencies. Some studies suggest it raised turnout by around 2 percentage points and some have argued that the results could have been even better with improved implementation.

Support for making registration easier dates back to 2014, when a select committee report on Voter Engagement proposed making it automatic. This became the basis of some party manifestos. There is now a growing cross-party consensus about a set of measures that could be used to address the problem of the Missing Millions, with a report on the issue published last year and backed by members of all political parties in Westminster. After all the divisions the Brexit debate has opened up, the effort to build a complete and inclusive democracy is more important than ever before. …”

http://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/03/08/now-theyre-on-a-roll-how-to-get-the-missing-millions-onto-the-electoral-register/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

9 Mar 2017

Posted under

Democracy, Voting

“Grumpy Old Man Political Party” abolished

“The Electoral Commission maintains the official register of political parties and regularly culls defunct entries from it.

Amongst the parties removed from the list in the latest updates were:

British Unicorn Party, who wanted to abolish BBC South East Today, soared to four group members on Facebook and whose founder issued death threats to magistrates.

The Grumpy Old Men Political Party, whose policies included creating Whack a Munchkin day and restoring not only corporal punishment but also the death penalty.

Everyone’s Party, which possibly inaccurately called itself on Facebook, “The Largest Political Party On The Planet” (84 likes at last time of checking).

Kitten Independence Party, which intended to stand Sheena Gael Hunt in Torbay in the 2015 general election but did not manage it. It alas never registered a party logo.”

http://www.markpack.org.uk/148702/british-unicorn-party/

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Austerity cuts, Democracy, Scrutiny, Sleaze, Spin, Standards Committee, Transparency, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

“Surrey council leader ‘had gentleman’s agreement’ with ministers”

David Hodge, the leader of Surrey council, told Conservative colleagues that he had secured a “gentleman’s agreement” with senior cabinet ministers that persuaded him to cancel a threat to raise council tax by 15%.

In a secret recording of a Conservative group meeting on 7 February, the politician revealed there had been a “series of conversations” with the communities secretary, Sajid Javid, in a car outside Downing street, followed by a second meeting with the chancellor, Philip Hammond.

Hodge told those in the room not to email or tweet any details as he shared details of meetings that appeared to take place between an MP acting as an intermediary and the cabinet members.

He said the MP was “looking for assurances, looking for clarification, looking for help basically on how we could stop the referendum” from Javid in the car.

“He [the MP] then went inside and spoke to the chancellor – I think I can say that. He went inside and spoke to the chancellor, his spad was waiting – spad being his political whatever they call it [special adviser] – he was with him and then the spad rang me with what we can and cannot say,” Hodge added, according to a transcript of the meeting passed to the Guardian.

Hodge implied that the outcome of the meeting was for him to withdraw the decision to push for a referendum that day, which would allow the council to raise the tax to 15%, and instead stick with the 4.99% allowed without asking voters for permission.

The question over whether Surrey was subject to a sweetheart deal was raised in the House of Commons by the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a day later, on 8 February after he received leaked texts from Hodge that suggested an agreement had been reached.

But this recording goes much further – with Hodge talking about his major worries about finances, particularly disability funding. He talked about the government pushing forward with some form of funding review.

“We’ve agreed this morning that, subject to them agreeing, that if it’s possible, we will become part of that process going forward,” he said, before adding that he was not giving up the fight over disability funding or the Better Care Fund for social care.

“We listened carefully to the information that was being relayed back to us from government. Yes, on one hand Tony is absolutely right, we should get something in writing. But on the other hand I do actually have something in writing, that Helen knows I have in writing, Sir Paul Beresford knows I have in writing, which gives me a certain amount of comfort but I’m not going to release that information for obvious reasons,” he added.

“There may come a time that if what I call gentleman’s agreements, that the Conservative party often does, are not honoured, we will have to revisit this in nine months or a year’s time. If we do, let me assure you, you’ll have to drag me kicking and screaming not to go for a referendum next year.”

The shadow communities minister, Gareth Thomas, said: “Sajid Javid and Philip Hammond should come to the House of Commons and explain what the gentleman’s agreement that they’ve done – explain why they are offering it to Surrey council and not the rest of English councils trying to manage budgets that are at tipping point.”

The meeting of the council’s Conservative group took place on a Tuesday, the same day that the council announced plans to cancel the referendum. The issue was then raised by Corbyn at prime minister’s questions in the House of Commons the next day following texts referring to a “memorandum of understanding” between the government and council.

A day later, on Thursday 9 February, it emerged that Surrey county council had been chosen to take part in a new government pilot scheme under which the local authority would retain 100% of business rates raised in the county.

But both Javid and the council strongly denied there was any sweetheart deal. A spokesman for Surrey county council said they could not comment on a meeting of the Conservative group, but said there had been no shift from a statement issued when the controversy first emerged.

Hodge said at the time: “Surrey’s decision not to proceed with a 15% council tax increase was ours alone and there has been no deal between Surrey county council and the government.

“However, I am confident that the government now understands the real pressures in adult social care and the need for a lasting solution.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/mar/07/surrey-council-leader-had-gentlemans-agreement-with-ministers

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

7 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Hugo Swire, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Swire worried about effect of sugar tax – on soft drink manufacturers!

NHS crisis? What crisis? We must worry about how soft drinks manufacturers will suffer with a sugar tax.

Why are people voting for this man?

Written Answers – HM Treasury: Sugar: Taxation (6 Mar 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-28.65915.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g65915.q0

Hugo Swire: To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will consider mitigating the effects of the soft drinks industry levy on those manufacturers currently paying additional tax to use organic rather than conventional sugar.

Written Answers – Department of Health: Sugar: Obesity (6 Mar 2017)
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2017-02-28.65916.h&s=speaker%3A11265#g65916.q0

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what assessment he has made of the effects of high-cost and low-volume sugary drinks on levels of obesity.

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

4 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, Corruption, Democracy, Voting

Comments

1 Comment

Downing Street worried about election expenses scandal

“The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than legally allowed in marginal constitutencies during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Up to six local constituencies could be forced into hurried by-elections following a police investigation into expenses fraud, senior Tories fear.
It is possible that party officials could face charges.

The police probe centres around allegations that the Conservatives spent more than they were legally allowed campaigning for marginal seats during the 2015 General Election, and did not declare full expenses.

Files are set to be passed to the CPS within the next few weeks, The Times reports, and it is believed half a dozen seats could be affected.”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4280950/Downing-Street-deeply-worried-police-probe.html

Standard

Posted by

Posted on

1 Mar 2017

Posted under

Accountability, DCC, East Devon Alliance, Independent Councillors, Sustainability, Transparency, Voting

East Devon Alliance manifesto for Devon County Council election, May 2017

“The East Devon Alliance campaigns for transparency, accountability and democracy in local government. It supports Independent candidates who are responsible to the electors rather than a national party machine.

In the County Council elections, we are supporting Independent East Devon Alliance candidates in the Axminster, Seaton & Colyton, and Sidmouth divisions. Our candidates aim to make Devon County Council more accountable and transparent in all its dealings.

Like all local authorities, Devon County Council is facing an unprecedented long-term loss of funding and control. Once elected, Independent EDA County Councillors will use their positions to campaign for fair funding for local services and ensure local democratic control – rather than allowing central government and corporations to increasingly privatise everything which affects our communities.

Our candidates all support the following platform:

1. We will speak up for our constituents and campaign for local needs, not be bound by a national party line.

2. We will work for Devon County Council to support proper funding of the local NHS and the restoration of a fully public National Health Service, and oppose privatisation of NHS services and closures of community hospitals and beds.

3. We will fight to achieve adequate social care, especially for Devon’s growing population of older people, in the face of continued underfunding of this and other key services including mental health and children’s services.

4. We oppose the reductions in funding for many East Devon schools which will result from the supposedly ‘fairer’ National Funding Framework, and any new proposals to force local schools to become academies.

5. We will work to protect library services in the new mutual framework.

6. We will support local residents fighting for proper road maintenance and highway safety improvements.

7. We believe that rises of 9% in Council Tax over 2 years are unfair to many residents, yet not enough to protect services. Until there is a fairer local tax system, the Government should restore national funding for local services.

8. We also believe that small businesses should be protected from the Government’s changes to business rates.

9. We support genuine devolution of powers from central Government to Devon but we oppose the merger with Somerset in the so-called ‘Heart of the South West’ and the central role which the current opaque devolution proposals give to unelected businessmen in the Local Enterprise Partnership. We oppose the priority to the outdated and ruinously expensive Hinkley C project in these proposals.

10. During the forthcoming negotiations with the EU, we will work to represent the interests of all residents in healthcare, tourism, farming, and rural affairs. We also support initiatives to develop Devon’s tourism economy, welcoming visitors from home and abroad.”