Did the Labour Party exceed expenditure limits for the 2005 General Election?
Alan Stinchcombe | 29.03.2006 21:21 | Analysis
On 28th March, I reported possible criminal offences by the Labour Party in respect of election campaign expenditure during the 2005 General Election to New Scotland Yard.
The Met has acknowledged receipt of my report, but has not yet made any public statement indicating that it is being investigated.
The Met has acknowledged receipt of my report, but has not yet made any public statement indicating that it is being investigated.
Text of report to Metropolitan Police Service:
Report of apparent offences under The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000
I wish to report that the Registered Treasurer(s) of the Labour Party appears to have committed a criminal offence under section 82(4)(b) of The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 by delivering a return relating to the 2005 General Election that does not comply with the requirements of section 80(3)(a).
I also wish to report that the Labour Party and its Registered Treasurer(s) appear to have committed criminal offences under section 79(2) of the same Act by very substantially exceeding the campaign expenditure limit for the 2005 General Election.
For your information, the Financial Statements for year ending 2004 submitted to the Electoral Commission by the Labour Party were signed by Registered Treasurer, Matt Carter (Party General Secretary, with numerous deputies) and by Party Treasurer, Jack Dromey.
I refer to the following statements reported in the article
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006120842,00.html:
1. Labour Party Treasurer Jack Dromey said that he was “kept in the dark” over the
£13.95 million received as loans.
2. Labour Party Chairman Ian McCartney said: “All funds raised [as loans] were spent on re-electing Labour MPs.”
On the assumption that as Party Treasurer, Jack Dromey was, or should reasonably have been, fully aware of the £17.94 million declared as election campaign expenditure in Great Britain by the Labour Party
(Source: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/gbcampaignex.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272006%2D03%2D28%2000%3A09%3A26%27%7D), the £13.95 million received as loans, of which he says he was not aware, could not have formed any part of the declared campaign expenditure.
However, the Chairman says that all of the loans were spent on Westminster election campaign expenses, presumably within the regulated period for the 2005 General Election.
This indicates that:
a) The Labour Party failed to declare £13.95 million as election campaign expenditure.
b) The Labour Party’s actual election campaign expenditure was £17.94 million plus £13.95 million, making a total of £32.89 million, exceeding the combined statutory maximum expenditure limits for Great Britain and Northern Ireland of £19.38 million
(Source: http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/legcamexppolparty.cfm)
by £13.51 million (70% of the combined limits of £19.38 million).
Report of apparent offences under The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000
I wish to report that the Registered Treasurer(s) of the Labour Party appears to have committed a criminal offence under section 82(4)(b) of The Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 by delivering a return relating to the 2005 General Election that does not comply with the requirements of section 80(3)(a).
I also wish to report that the Labour Party and its Registered Treasurer(s) appear to have committed criminal offences under section 79(2) of the same Act by very substantially exceeding the campaign expenditure limit for the 2005 General Election.
For your information, the Financial Statements for year ending 2004 submitted to the Electoral Commission by the Labour Party were signed by Registered Treasurer, Matt Carter (Party General Secretary, with numerous deputies) and by Party Treasurer, Jack Dromey.
I refer to the following statements reported in the article
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006120842,00.html: 1. Labour Party Treasurer Jack Dromey said that he was “kept in the dark” over the
£13.95 million received as loans.
2. Labour Party Chairman Ian McCartney said: “All funds raised [as loans] were spent on re-electing Labour MPs.”
On the assumption that as Party Treasurer, Jack Dromey was, or should reasonably have been, fully aware of the £17.94 million declared as election campaign expenditure in Great Britain by the Labour Party
(Source:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/gbcampaignex.cfm?ec=%7Bts%20%272006%2D03%2D28%2000%3A09%3A26%27%7D), the £13.95 million received as loans, of which he says he was not aware, could not have formed any part of the declared campaign expenditure. However, the Chairman says that all of the loans were spent on Westminster election campaign expenses, presumably within the regulated period for the 2005 General Election.
This indicates that:
a) The Labour Party failed to declare £13.95 million as election campaign expenditure.
b) The Labour Party’s actual election campaign expenditure was £17.94 million plus £13.95 million, making a total of £32.89 million, exceeding the combined statutory maximum expenditure limits for Great Britain and Northern Ireland of £19.38 million
(Source:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/legcamexppolparty.cfm) by £13.51 million (70% of the combined limits of £19.38 million).
Alan Stinchcombe
e-mail:
astinchcombe@hotmail.com
Comments
Hide the following 3 comments
Al Capone is Tony Blair
29.03.2006 23:53
Danny
I quite agree, Danny
30.03.2006 12:30
Alan
'the Met isn't ready to prosecute him for war crimes'
30.03.2006 19:28
poster girl for a 'legal' genocide
Lords reject anti-war protesters' defence
The law lords said the crime of aggression under international law was not a crime under English laws that provide a defence to someone who commits an offence in order to prevent a greater one."
I'd love for them to explain that to Imam Walid, I just heard the ten year olds account of how angry US marines blew down her front door, shot all the rest of her family and then threw a grenade under the bed her grandfather was in and tried to pass it off as shrapnel from a roadside bomb. If the peace protestors had succeeded, that crime may have been prevented and that is just one of all the subsequent massacres that Blair personally enabled and should be held responsible for. And the lawlords should watch their own back as long as they condone this genocide as they themselves are subject to the ICC - and their personal security can't be perfect.
If policemen are permitted to shoot a suspected bomber in the head surely they are allowed to shoot Tony Blair for all the deaths he has caused ? I wish one of them would bring a testcase.
Iraqi girl tells of US attack
Collateral Damage or Civilian Massacre in Haditha?
Danny