2018 Labour byelection campaign in Upton spent £939.87 but only received £600 in donations, so where did the other £339.87 come from?
2018 Labour byelection campaign in Upton spent £939.87 but only received £600 in donations, so where did the other £339.87 come from?
Cllr Jean Robinson (Upton) 22nd January 2019
Edited 24.1.19 15:46 Since this story has been published, we have been told by the candidate that the missing £339.87 came from Upton Labour Party Branch Funds who were a permissible donor. Their donation was not included in the donations page on the return or as notional spending. Jean Robinson (the candidate) stated, “So obviously, it implied obviously that there’s something’s that has been done wrong, ermm or you know which I’m sure that isn’t the case … I can go through that because I say it was all sent in with obviously receipts et cetera and so on and audited but you know the money came obviously from the Branch Fund and that has obviously gone in with receipts and overspent.”
Do Cllr Christina Muspratt’s election expenses add up (a councillor who is on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing £billions of public money)?
Do Cllr Christina Muspratt’s election expenses add up (a councillor who is on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing £billions of public money)?
I’ve decided to publish the election expenses by ward alphabetically. However these are only for candidates who got over a quarter of the vote.
There was a small delay in inspecting these returns due to the pressures on the election side at Wirral Council due to the EU Referendum.
The first one is for Bebington ward and that of Christina Muspratt (the Labour candidate) who was elected as a councillor.
Cllr Christina Muspratt sits on Wirral Council’s Audit and Risk Management Committee overseeing hundreds of millions of pounds of public expenditure and also (as Wirral Council is the Administering Authority) the multi-billion pound Merseyside Pension Fund Wirral Council runs (although the Pensions Committee also have oversight of the Merseyside Pension Fund)).
However her donations and spending don’t match in the pages below.
Her campaign lists £243.06 of spending (although some notional spending should’ve also been declared but mysteriously wasn’t as the printing of leaflets at Alison McGovern‘s office (the Labour MP for Wirral South) was done at below commercial rates)).
Indeed the use of taxpayer-funded resources at Wirral Council and at Alison McGovern’s office (the Labour MP for Wirral South) is odd as generally there is a bar on taxpayer-funded elements to party political activity during elections and indeed if people would like to leave comments explaining this it would be welcome.
As a general rule having the taxpayer fund elements of an election campaign (a party political matter) is seen as wrong.
There are however only £150 in donations to cover this spending though. I hope Labour aren’t applying this kind of voodoo economics to Wirral Council too!
The declarations signed by herself and her agent are also included. As she was well under the spending limit (even if you include what the notional expenditure should’ve been) of £1,456.16 it’s unlikely anything that this will result other than mild embarrassment as in future (hopefully) she will read things before signing them!
I’ve included the originals as a zipped file below, thumbnails of the return (which as a lot of it’s handwritten may be hard to read) are below that.
I’ve linked each thumbnail to a higher resolution image which should show if you click on the thumbnail.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 19
As you can see above, Wirral Council has removed the names and addresses of the individual donors who donated £100 and £250 to Frank Field’s election campaign.
I have e-mailed Wirral Council requesting the names of the donors who donated £100 and £250, which shouldn’t have been blacked out when I inspected the return.
There’s also something declared in the election expenses for Frank Field’s campaign that from a technical legal perspective shouldn’t have been included as election expenses. To stand as a General Election candidate you require a £500 deposit which is refunded if you get 5% of the vote.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 13Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 33
“(2)No election expenses are to be regarded as incurred by virtue of subsection (1) above or section 90C below in respect of any matter specified in Part 2 of Schedule 4A.”
Part 2 (General Exclusions) of Schedule 4A of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states:
7 The payment of any deposit required by rule 9 of Schedule 1 to this Act.
Rules 9 of Schedule 1 relates to the £500 deposit for parliamentary elections and is below for reference.
Deposit
9(1) A person shall not be validly nominated unless the sum of £500 is deposited by him or on his behalf with the returning officer at the place and during the time for delivery of nomination papers.
(2) The deposit may be made either—
(a) by the deposit of any legal tender, or
(b) by means of a banker’s draft, or
(c) with the returning officer’s consent, in any other manner (including by means of a debit or credit card or the electronic transfer of funds) .
but the returning officer may refuse to accept a deposit sought to be made by means of a banker’s draft if he does not know that the drawer carries on business as a banker in the United Kingdom.
(3) Where the deposit is made on behalf of the candidate, the person making the deposit shall at the time he makes it give his name and address to the returning officer (unless they have previously been given to him under section 67 of this Act or rule 6(4) above).
However moving on from trivial matters, to the more serious issue of how you split expenses incurred jointly between two campaigns.
Below are the declarations of Phil Davies and his election agent Jean Stapleton about Phil Davies’ election expenses return in Birkenhead and Tranmere stating that to the “best of my knowledge and belief it is a complete and accurate return as required by law”.
Jean Stapleton election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015Phil Davies election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015
There are maximum expenditure limits for local election candidates, which are set at £740 + 6 pence per an elector. As there were 9,525 electors in Birkenhead and Tranmere this means the maximum expenditure limit comes to £740 + (£0.06 times 9,525) = £1,311.50 . You can see this amount used for Phil Davies’ election expenses return below.
Election expenses return Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015 Phil Davies
Spending over these limits is classed as an illegal practice, see section 76 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and if the candidate and/or agent “knew or ought reasonably to have known that the expenses would be incurred in excess of that maximum amount” then a court can find them guilty of an illegal practice and they could be barred from standing in the by-election that would result.
The total spent by Phil Davies’ campaign as declared on the election expenses return was £1,266.17 as you can see from this page below.
Election expenses total spending Birkenhead and Tranmere Phil Davies 2015
Electoral Commission guidance (see the bottom of page 81 here states on the issue of splitting expenses:
The honest assessment principle
5.19 In all cases you should make an honest assessment, based on the facts, of the proportion of expenditure that can fairly be attributed to your candidate spending.
5.20 This is important, because when you sign the declaration for your election expenses return, you are confirming that the return is complete and correct to the best of your knowledge and belief.
As part of the campaigns of Frank Field and Phil Davies a joint leaflet was put out and the total costs of £1,511 were split between the two campaigns.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 23
As you can see below £377.75 of the joint leaflet was attributed to Frank Field’s campaign.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22
The invoice submitted as part of Phil Davies’ election expenses return show that the remaining (£1500 – £377.75) = £1133.55 was split five ways equally between the campaigns for Bidston & James, Birkenhead & Tranmere, Claughton, Prenton and Rock Ferry.
Phil Davies election expenses invoice joint leaflet
The portion of this leaflet attributed to Phil Davies’ campaign was £226.65.
However different amounts of leaflets were printed for each area (as you can see on the invoice). 7,263 for Bidston & St. James, 8,055 for Birkenhead and Tranmere, 6,787 for Claughton, 6,974 for Rock Ferry and 6,090 for Prenton.
This total comes to 35,169 leaflets. The proportion for Birkenhead and Tranmere was 8,055. 8,055 divided by 35,169 = 22.9%. 22.9% of £1133.55 = £259.58 (£32.93 higher than the number used when it is instead just split five ways instead).
This wasn’t the only joint leaflet between Frank Field’s and Phil Davies’ campaign though. There was also the “Vote Twice” leaflet. As you can see below, £243 of this was attributed to Frank Field’s campaign.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22
Here’s the invoice for the vote twice leaflet submitted with Phil Davies’ election expenses return.
Phil Davies Birkenhead and Tranmere election expenses vote twice invoice
This is where I can’t even understand how the split used has been arrived at.
£972 – the proportion paid for by Frank Field’s campaign (£243) = £729
Handwritten on the invoice is “BIRKENHEAD & TRANMERE SHARE = £139.80 ONLY DELIVERED 3600 leaflets = £71.90”
If £729 was split five ways it would come out as £145.80 per a ward.
If £729 is split by numbers of leaflets delivered in Birkenhead and Tranmere it would be £729 * (3600/7000) = £374.91.
If the amount for the proportion of leaflets for Bidston/Rock Ferry/Birkenhead (4000) is calculated as 4000/7000 * £729 = £416.57. Then as it’s for three wards it’s divided by three, £416.57/3 = £138.86 (which is near enough to one of the figures used of £139.80).
However this figure (£139.80 would be for 1333 leaflets (4000 divided by 3)). For some bizarre reason 3600/7000 has been used to arrive at a proportion of £138.86 as £71.90. Doing it this way appears to be incorrect (to me anyway as logically if 3600 leaflets were delivered instead of 1333 it should lead to an increased not decreased amount).
If 3600 leaflets were delivered in Birkenhead and Tranmere then the figure should have been (£972 – Frank Field’s share (£243)) * (3600/7000) = £374.91 (£303.10 higher then declared).
The net effect of using of both these calculations under the “honest assessment principle” of sharing costs between these joint leaflets is to increase the expenditure on this campaign by £32.93 + £303.10 = £336.03.
This would make the total expenditure £336.03 + £1,266.17 = £1602.20 (massively above the maximum expenditure limit of £1,311.50).
So who’s got their figures wrong, myself or Phil Davies and his agent?
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Frank Field’s election campaign spent £254.40 on balloon gas but what else was money spent on?
Frank Field’s election campaign spent £254.40 on balloon gas but what else was money spent on?
Today I went to Wallasey Town Hall and inspected several candidates’ election returns for the 2015 elections. Below are the pages from Frank Field’s campaign.
Unlike the local election where there is just one period that expenditure and donations need to be declared for, in a General Election there are two periods called “campaigns”. The “long campaign” is from 19th December 2014 to the date the person became a candidate. The “short campaign” is from the date they became a candidate to polling day.
Frank Fields’ campaign spent £31 during the long campaign (£19 on a mobile phone and £12 with WordPress for a website). However during the long campaign he received a £1,000 donation from USDAW (the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers).
During the short campaign £7,651.25 was spent (£1,200 on an advertising wraparound in the Wirral Globe, £4,794.35 on leaflets, £35.50 on taxis, £500 on the deposit, £254.40 on balloon gas, £437 on a market stall, £400 on office space in the Lauries Centre, £30 on topping up the mobile phone (presumably the one bought during the long campaign).
In the short campaign, the Birkenhead Constituency Labour Party donated £6,675.75, the Communication Worker’s Union £90 plus there were also two donations from individuals for £100 and £250. Updated 22nd June 2015: Wirral Council has been in touch and said that the names of the individual donors being blacked out was a mistake. £100 was donated by Ken Tasker and the £250 by Abhii Mantgani. These total £7,115.75.
The difference between expenditure and donations for this period was £535.50 was met by the candidate.
However I will point out that in the short campaign there was still £969 unspent from the donation from USDAW.
The documents submitted as his election expenses returns for the short and long period are below.
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 1Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 2Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 3Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 4Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 5Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 6Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 7Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 8Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 9Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 10Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 11Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 12Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 13Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 14Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 15Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 16Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 17Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 18Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 19Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 20Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 21Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 22Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 23Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 24Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 25Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 26Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 27Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 28Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 29Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 30Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 31Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 32Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 33Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 34Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 35Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 36Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 37Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 38Birkenhead General Election 2015 Declaration election expenses Frank FieldBirkenhead General Election 2015 declaration election expenses George DaviesBirkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 39Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 40Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 41Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 42Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 43Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 44Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 45Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 46Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 47Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 48Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 49Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 50Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 51Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 52Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 53Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 54Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 55Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 56Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 57Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return long campaign page 58
If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.
Interest Declaration: The writer was a candidate in the 2012 elections for the Metropolitan Borough of Wirral.
Interest Declaration: The writer sued the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats in the Birkenhead County Court over an alleged breach of s.7 of the Data Protection Act 1998. Deputy District Judge Ireland found in favour of the author in April 2012 and issued a court order in the author’s favour against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.
Interest Declaration: The writer is once again involved with litigation against the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats.
So there I was at work and I got handed 56 pages of election expenses returns from candidates in Birkenhead (cost to where I work was £11.20 (20p*56)).
It turns out though that Wirral Council however loves:
a) to cover things up,
b) doesn’t know what an individual is,
c) to overcharge and
d) has a very vague understanding of the law.
Hmm, doesn’t that all seem familiar? First however, a little bit of history. The Returning Officer for this election was Bill Norman. He got suspended on the 28th June 2012 shortly after the elections, to be replaced as Returning Officer on the 16th July 2012 by Mr. Surjit Tour.
However the day-to-day running of the electoral services is done by staff in the department that Mr. Surjit Tour is the Acting Head of (Department of Law, HR and Asset Management).
Last month I made a request to see various candidates election expenses returns, which include a donations page detailed where the money came from. I went to see them on Friday 31st August), I queried why the names, addresses and status of all donors had been “blacked out” from the copies I was inspecting. When I queried it I was told by an employee (who I won’t embarrass by naming here) that it was the law to do so. So I requested copies anyway.
I queried this “interpretation” with the Electoral Commission and I quote below from their response this afternoon:
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.”
So I read the link, and sure enough on page 6 at 2.18 it states:-
“The addresses of individuals who have made donations to candidates, must by law, be removed from all inspection copies and copies supplied on request.”
Odd, I thought considering this candidate didn’t receive any donations from individuals, but from a political party (which is an unincorporated association not a living, air-breathing person like the individual writing this article). Then I remembered something, this candidate got herself elected, so the information on who donated the £984.33 to her campaign, is already in her published Register of Interests on Wirral Council’s website as Birkenhead Liberal Democrats. So Wirral Council in irony worthy of a Greek tragedy are ironically covering up some information already available on their website!
Sadly this only applies to twenty-two out of the hundred and nine candidates though. Ahh them, the Birkenhead Liberal Democrats, who lost to me in a lawsuit earlier on this year in the Birkenhead County Court. As agreed by all sides in that case (defendant and plantiff alike), they’re an unincorporated association, not an individual, but let’s move on.
Oh well, that’s 20p that Wirral Council owe me back then, plus an apology. However now somebody is going to have to re photocopy (from the originals) the donations pages of 109 candidates and I’ll have to rearrange another appointment to inspect them. Well at least this mistake costs them about £22 in photocopies and perhaps £20 in staff time and on the plus side it’s not as high as the extra £440,000 Wirral Council’s is having to pay back people it overcharged, but I’m hoping the refund of 20 pence won’t take twelve years to process! Perhaps I’d better not tell them I have a disability then. 🙂 Don’t worry Wirral Council I won’t charge you interest.
