What’s happening next in the 2018 elections of councillors on the Wirral?

What’s happening next in the 2018 elections of councillors on the Wirral?

What’s happening next in the 2018 elections of councillors on the Wirral?

Electoral Commission individual election observer ID John Brace 2018
Electoral Commission individual election observer ID John Brace 2018

The author would like to thank The Bureau of Investigative Journalism for its help with this story.

At these elections and indeed for the rest of 2018 I’m an accredited election observer (my photo ID for this was recently issued by the Electoral Commission as you can see above).
Continue reading “What’s happening next in the 2018 elections of councillors on the Wirral?”

What did Gillian Wood’s election campaign to become a councillor in Claughton ward spend £1,354.53 on?

What did Gillian Wood’s election campaign to become a councillor in Claughton ward spend £1,354.53 on?

What did Gillian Wood’s election campaign to become a councillor in Claughton ward spend £1,354.53 on?

ED – updated 4.7.2017 to include extra detail on VAT treatment and comment

Below this blog post is the paperwork submitted as part of the election expense return for the Labour candidate for the Claughton byelection for a councillor to Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council.

These are open to public inspection and I inspected these at Wallasey Town Hall last week (although there was a delay due to “staffing issues”).

The agent for the Labour candidate Gillian Wood was Martin Morris. Although Cllr George Davies and the Wirral Labour Group have had an involvement in the campaign too.

On the 5th May 2017, the result was announced. Gillian Wood was returned as a councillor for a period of one year with a vote of 1,761 votes (52%), a majority of 1,021. The second placed candidate for the Liberal Democrats received 740 votes (22%) and the voting system used was first past the post.

The nomination papers for this candidate show that her nomination papers were submitted on the 3rd April 2017 at 4.30 pm and the initials (KR) of the Wirral Council employee that accepted them was Kate Robinson.

Strangely, this date on the nomination papers doesn’t match the date given on page 1 of the election expenses return (see below) (5th April 2017) as the date she became a candidate and is after the date given that the agent was appointed (4th April 2017).

I asked another election agent in this Claughton byelection (Allan Brame who was agent for David Evans the Liberal Democrat candidiate) about matters involving the documentation below. He helpfully pointed out that leaflets are zero-rated for the purposes of VAT.

He also stated that the latest date a person could become a candidate was the 4th April 2017 (close of nominations) and the earliest date 27th March 2017 (if the candidacy had already been announced). On the subject of donations he stated “I am surprised that the details of donations have not been provided.

However, the election expenditure return shows expenditure of £1,354.53 (the spending limit was £1,427.42).

Invoices accompanying the return are for hire of a car PA System on polling day from SS Radio (£30) and for leaflets from LT Print Ltd (2,500 Vote Labour cards) for £169.20 (£141 + £28.20 (VAT)). Although as these are VAT zero-rated I’m puzzled as to why VAT is included on the invoice!

There are references to invoices 76414, 76415, 76796 and 76795 also from LT Print Ltd, also for leaflets. These invoices were paid by BACS payment and amount to £491, £364, £253 and £491.

It is claimed by the agent that of the first of these (invoice 76414) for £491 that £415.47 doesn’t apply to the election period as 5,500 of these leaflets were delivered prior to the 26th March 2017.

This would imply that this invoice (which was not supplied) was for 6,500 leaflets, of which 1,000 were delivered during the election period.

Where the money came from referring to the £1,354.53 spent during the campaign is unknown as donations were entered as £NIL.

As the candidate who was elected, Gillian Wood also has to state in a declaration which individuals or organisations funded her elections campaign which is published on Wirral Council’s website.

At the time of writing, there is no link to her register of interests from the page about her on Wirral Council’s website.

Agent Declaration Labour byelection Claughton byelection 2017 Martin Morris
Agent Declaration Labour byelection Claughton byelection 2017 Martin Morris
Declaration candidate Labour byelection Claughton 2017 cropped resized
Declaration candidate Labour byelection Claughton 2017 cropped resized Gillian Wood
SS Radio 30 resized
SS Radio 30 resized
Statement of account LT Print page 1 of 2 resized
Statement of account LT Print page 1 of 2 resized
Statement of account LT Print page 2 of 2 resized
Statement of account LT Print page 2 of 2 resized
LT Print invoice 141 resized
LT Print invoice 141 resized
Candidate election expenditure-Labour-byelection page 1 of 15 section 1 section 2
Candidate election expenditure-Labour-byelection page 1 of 15 section 1 section 2 Candidate Gillian Wood Agent Martin Morris
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 2 section 4 section 5
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 2 section 4 section 5
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 3 section 3a section 3b
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 3 section 3a section 3b
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 4 Advertising
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 4 Advertising
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 5 Unsolicited material to electors
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 5 Unsolicited material to electors
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 6 Transport
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 6 Transport
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 7 Public Meetings
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 7 Public Meetings
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 8 Agent and other staff costs
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 8 Agent and other staff costs
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 9 Accommodation and administration
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 9 Accommodation and administration
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 10 Other Authorised Spending
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 10 Other Authorised Spending
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 11 Personal Expenses
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 11 Personal Expenses
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 12 Unpaid Claims
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 12 Unpaid Claims
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 13 Disputed Claims
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 13 Disputed Claims
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 14 Permissible Donations
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 14 Permissible Donations
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 15 Impermissible Donations
Candidate election expenditure Labour byelection page 15 Impermissible Donations

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?

What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?

What were the most read stories on this blog for each month in 2016?

                                    

Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) speaking at a recent meeting of the Birkenhead Constituency Committee (28th July 2016) while Councillor Pat Cleary (Green) (left) listens
Councillor Steve Foulkes (Labour) (right) features in one of the stories

As we’re approaching the end of the year, I thought it would be useful to look back and see the posts that were most read on this blog each month from January 2016 to November 2016, along with some comments of my own.

January 2016
Why are people objecting to the Hoylake Golf Resort plans?

People are still objecting and it goes to a call in meeting on Wednesday afternoon.

February 2016
Why did Wirral Council’s Cabinet recommend closure of Girtrell Court despite a protest against closure and opposition from the trade unions?

Another long running story that had its twists and turns in 2016.

March 2016
Tribunal confirms that Wirral Council paid ~£48,000 to Emma Degg connected to confidential compromise agreement

A pay off to Wirral Council’s former senior manager in charge of their press office, would Emma Degg have approved of a Council newspaper?

April 2016
Tribunal date set for 16th June 2016 over Wirral Council FOI request; but who’s being gagged?

Gagging of a different sort but the Tribunal theme continues.

May 2016
Who wouldn’t want you to read this story about the election of 4 Wirral councillors?

The elections came and went in May 2016.

June 2016
Why has Wirral Council sunk deeper into the quagmire of poor corporate governance surrounding a complaint about Cllr Steve Foulkes?

No public or filming was allowed at the public meeting to decide a complaint about Cllr Foulkes.

July 2016
Plans to consult on changes to bin collections put on hold as Cllr Stuart Kelly requires councillors to look again at Cabinet decision

The recently elected Cllr Kelly called in the Cabinet decision to consult on changes to the bin collections. So did the Conservatives, however Labour made sure that the consultation went ahead.

August 2016
5 days after Lyndale School closes, Labour councillors on Wirral Council’s Cabinet will meet to decide on a further consultation on sale of Lyndale School and the playing fields

Lyndale School was heading for closure and the Cabinet had further decisions to make.

September 2016
Planning Committee (Wirral Council) 22nd August 2013 refuses plan for Tesco in Wallasey Village

Strangely this story from 2013 was the most read in September 2016.

October 2016
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)?

This story published in June 2016 became October’s most read story.

November 2016
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)?

And then it became November’s most read story too.

So the themes of stories most read for 2016 were Hoylake Golf Resort, a pay off to a former senior manager, gagging, elections, secret public meetings, bins, Lyndale School, a planning application refused for a Tesco supermarket and election expenses.

Who knows what will happen in 2017?

If you click on any of the buttons below, you’ll be doing me a favour by sharing this article with other people.

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)?

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.

Compressed file of all 20 original pages in election expenses return for Christina Muspratt (thumbnails below)

Bebington May 2016 Wirral Council councillor candidate Christina Muspratt agent declaration Page 1 of 1
Bebington May 2016 Wirral Council councillor candidate Christina Muspratt agent declaration Page 1 of 1

Continue reading “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)?”

Can you make this election arithmetic add up?

Can you make this election arithmetic add up?

Can you make this election arithmetic add up?

                                                    

Yesterday’s blog post headlined Frank Field’s election campaign spent £254.40 on balloon gas but what else was money spent on? contained a donations page (which is below).

Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 19
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.

However the legislation, s.89(1A) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 only allows them to remove addresses of individual donors to candidate’s election campaigns, not the names of individual donors too!

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 13
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 13
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 33
Birkenhead General Election 2015 election expenses return short campaign page 33

Obviously Frank Field got more than 5% and the deposit would have been refunded. However section 95ZA subsection 2 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 states

“(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 2015
Jean Stapleton election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015
Phil Davies election expenses declaration Birkenhead and Tranmere 2015
Phil 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

The invoice states:

VOTE TWICE leaflets
QTY 3000 CLAUGHTON/PRENTON
QTY 4000 BIDSTON/ROCK FERRY/BIRKENHEAD

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.