Tory battlebus- election fraud or national campaigning?
Discussion
http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservativ...
These allegations have been rumbling on for a while it seems- Tories sent loads of activists into seats during the election and paid for their local stayover costs, thus exceeding local limits on election spending...
... Except that because they were part of a national tour they put the costs on the National Campaign bill, effectively allowing them to overspend on chosen seats.
http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservativ...
These allegations have been rumbling on for a while it seems- Tories sent loads of activists into seats during the election and paid for their local stayover costs, thus exceeding local limits on election spending...
... Except that because they were part of a national tour they put the costs on the National Campaign bill, effectively allowing them to overspend on chosen seats.
http://www.channel4.com/news/battlebus-conservativ...
That already has it's own thread here.
To answer your question, I don't know- it would probably depend on how many seats (as opposed to votes) it gains. The method allegedly used by the Tories effectively allows you to target an unsafe seat. I'm not sure the postal vote rigging thing can be targetted in the same way.
In any case, this looks like a clear and deliberate case of fraud developed at the highest level (and still will he if the Lib Dems or Labour have been found to be doing the same) and effectively an attempt to buy a majority.
Thinking about it, this doesn't give the party the plausible deniability that postal ballot rigging does, so I'd say this is the bigger scandal- it can't be blamed on some over-eager activists who can be thrown under the bus, it's been a signed-off and paid for campaign decision to break election spending rules.
To answer your question, I don't know- it would probably depend on how many seats (as opposed to votes) it gains. The method allegedly used by the Tories effectively allows you to target an unsafe seat. I'm not sure the postal vote rigging thing can be targetted in the same way.
In any case, this looks like a clear and deliberate case of fraud developed at the highest level (and still will he if the Lib Dems or Labour have been found to be doing the same) and effectively an attempt to buy a majority.
Thinking about it, this doesn't give the party the plausible deniability that postal ballot rigging does, so I'd say this is the bigger scandal- it can't be blamed on some over-eager activists who can be thrown under the bus, it's been a signed-off and paid for campaign decision to break election spending rules.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 4th May 13:19
Sounds to me like a close interpretation of the rules and staying just the correct side.
But then again it seems that tax avoidance is the new tax evasion and so all involved should be publicly flogged for having the temerity to play the game according to the strict letter of the rules better than others.
TL;DR - Next time get someone other than the trainee to do the drafting.
But then again it seems that tax avoidance is the new tax evasion and so all involved should be publicly flogged for having the temerity to play the game according to the strict letter of the rules better than others.
TL;DR - Next time get someone other than the trainee to do the drafting.
glazbagun said:
That already has it's own thread here.
To answer your question, I don't know- it would probably depend on how many seats (as opposed to votes) it gains. The method allegedly used by the Tories effectively allows you to target an unsafe seat. I'm not sure the postal vote rigging thing can be targetted in the same way.
In any case, this looks like a clear and deliberate case of fraud developed at the highest level (and still will he if the Lib Dems or Labour have been found to be doing the same) and effectively an attempt to buy a majority.
Thinking about it, this doesn't give the party the plausible deniability that postal ballot rigging does, so I'd say this is the bigger scandal- it can't be blamed on some over-eager activists who can be thrown under the bus, it's been a signed-off and paid for campaign decision to break election spending rules.
Possibly spending more then you should asking people to vote for you vs actually vote rigging.To answer your question, I don't know- it would probably depend on how many seats (as opposed to votes) it gains. The method allegedly used by the Tories effectively allows you to target an unsafe seat. I'm not sure the postal vote rigging thing can be targetted in the same way.
In any case, this looks like a clear and deliberate case of fraud developed at the highest level (and still will he if the Lib Dems or Labour have been found to be doing the same) and effectively an attempt to buy a majority.
Thinking about it, this doesn't give the party the plausible deniability that postal ballot rigging does, so I'd say this is the bigger scandal- it can't be blamed on some over-eager activists who can be thrown under the bus, it's been a signed-off and paid for campaign decision to break election spending rules.
Edited by glazbagun on Wednesday 4th May 13:19
Not that difficult to see which one is worse.
I suspect you also think Cameron is a tax evading b
d because he paid no capital gains tax (even though he owed none), yet Corbyn is just a bit forgetful (and totally forgivable) about putting all his income on his tax return 
I don't have a dog in this fight Andy as I pretty much hate all political parties, but you asked the question and I answered with my reasoning.
You read as pretty partisan. But pointing out that electoral fraud has also been of benefit to the Labour party and asking my personal opinion on which form of fraud is the most scandalous (I also think being shot is less horrible than being drowned) aren't the same as discussing what the Conservative party seem to have done and what consequences should result.
You read as pretty partisan. But pointing out that electoral fraud has also been of benefit to the Labour party and asking my personal opinion on which form of fraud is the most scandalous (I also think being shot is less horrible than being drowned) aren't the same as discussing what the Conservative party seem to have done and what consequences should result.
98elise said:
Possibly spending more then you should asking people to vote for you vs actually vote rigging.
Not that difficult to see which one is worse.
I suspect you also think Cameron is a tax evading bd because he paid no capital gains tax (even though he owed none), yet Corbyn is just a bit forgetful (and totally forgivable) about putting all his income on his tax return
Yeah one is like petty crime with a very high level of culpability but limited personal power, the other is more like corporate crime with no culpability for the footsoldiers but a power magnified by tbe level at which it was organized. It's like being ripped off by your local mechanic vs the PPI scandal.Not that difficult to see which one is worse.
I suspect you also think Cameron is a tax evading b
d because he paid no capital gains tax (even though he owed none), yet Corbyn is just a bit forgetful (and totally forgivable) about putting all his income on his tax return You suspect wrong regarding my opinions on Cameron's CGT/IHT tax avoidance. Disliking corruption in politics doesn't make you an unthinking Labour party apologist (rather obviously, I'd have thought!)
andymadmak said:
which do you think is the bigger electoral scandal? The Tories breaching spending rules by spending more of their money (I grant you this is serious) or the widespread postal and "instructed" voting fraud endemic in many labour held seats?
What's that got to do with the thread or whether the conservatives have done something wrong? Or are you saying any criticism of the conservatives must be lefty led and should be answered with criticism of the Labour Party instead,
el stovey said:
andymadmak said:
which do you think is the bigger electoral scandal? The Tories breaching spending rules by spending more of their money (I grant you this is serious) or the widespread postal and "instructed" voting fraud endemic in many labour held seats?
What's that got to do with the thread or whether the conservatives have done something wrong? Or are you saying any criticism of the conservatives must be lefty led and should be answered with criticism of the Labour Party instead,
Plus, I did say that what the Conservatives were being accused of was serious
Have to say I think it's truly a non story.
I did get involved a little in the campaign and some was very much local, some national.
I was asked a few times if I wanted to do the Battlebus trips (As I'm sure anyone who CCHQ had the email address of was) and it was obvious it was centrally orchestrated and nationally focussed.
The same would apply regardless of the party involved.
I did get involved a little in the campaign and some was very much local, some national.
I was asked a few times if I wanted to do the Battlebus trips (As I'm sure anyone who CCHQ had the email address of was) and it was obvious it was centrally orchestrated and nationally focussed.
The same would apply regardless of the party involved.
Justayellowbadge said:
Have to say I think it's truly a non story.
I did get involved a little in the campaign and some was very much local, some national.
I was asked a few times if I wanted to do the Battlebus trips (As I'm sure anyone who CCHQ had the email address of was) and it was obvious it was centrally orchestrated and nationally focussed.
The same would apply regardless of the party involved.
In NP&E? I doubt it.I did get involved a little in the campaign and some was very much local, some national.
I was asked a few times if I wanted to do the Battlebus trips (As I'm sure anyone who CCHQ had the email address of was) and it was obvious it was centrally orchestrated and nationally focussed.
The same would apply regardless of the party involved.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff