Home » Archive » 2007 » January
» Tories planning to break election law?

Tories planning to break election law?

The Times has got hold of Conservative advice to local council candidates. They think it shows that Conservatives are planning to flout the law.
Submitted by Peter Welch on 28 January 2007 - 12:56pm | Categories:

"The reason? Candidates are advised to amass of fighting fund three times greater than the legal limit. According to the Times:

THE Tories are planning to flout electoral spending laws in the local elections...Candidates for councillor are being told to recruit celebrity fundraisers to “raise three times the legal election maximum”, according to a leaked copy of the party’s campaign manual. "

You may find the advice useful. I didn't spot any surprises in the activities set out there. But the repetition of the Conservative "line" is interesting

"The Conservative Party of today is more green, more family friendly and less arrogant that politicians have all the answers to the problems we face. We understand that people want something to be done about the environment and their quality of life, and above all people want a government that delivers for them."

A good campaign might feature plenty of evidence to the contrary.


Comments

On 28 January 2007 - 1:24pm, Cllr Iain Lindley (not verified) wrote:

It's for campaigning outside election periods. Duh!


On 28 January 2007 - 2:10pm, Tom Papworth (not verified) wrote:

I have to say, unless the advice specifically says the money is to be spent during the election period, this sounds like a bit of a non-story.

To be fair, it was a little stupid of the Conservatives to talking about an "aim to raise three times the legal election maximum". Something along the lines of "aim to spend twice as much before the election period as you are allowed during" might have avoided the sniff of criminality.

But overall the document is clearly talking about a four month campaign. Frankly, that's the minimum one should be doing.


On 28 January 2007 - 3:51pm, Peter Welch wrote:

Thanks

I have corrected the link to the Times. Hopefully this explains where the hypothesis comes from.

Documents like this often point out the importance of not exceeding spending limits though. I didn't spot it here.

Peter

http://pigeon-post.blogspot.com/