EU Referendum: Vote Leave And Plagiarism?

The AV referendum in 2011 - which had been offered as nothing more than a sop to the Lib Dems as part of a coalition agreement - was one very few cared about; acutely reflected in the very low turnout.

The lack of interest allowed certain elements of the tight knit Westminster circle the opportunity to win the official designation with little competition and without, it's become apparent, much scrutiny.

Perhaps this gave significant reassurance for a team led by Elliott that designation for the EU referendum would also be a similar shoo-in. Certainly the media, well briefed by Elliott, have assumed so.

The relativity low profile of the AV referendum may have also given confidence that no-one would bother to wade through manually nearly 500 pages of invoices submitted to the Electoral Commission, invoices which illustrate a clear conflict of interest...at best...in the No2AV campaign.

Nor indeed an anticipation that records would be downloaded from companies house, among other records, regarding The Taxpayers' Alliance, nor that records would be sourced regarding companies registered in Hong Kong.

This appears to represent a lack of appreciation that there are many who have been in the anti-EU movement for years, if not decades, many of whom are battle hardened through bitter fighting. We are not going to stand aside and allow a SW1 candidate to waltz in and take the designation especially when it potentially involves handing out contracts to his Westminster friends - financial reward at the detriment of trying to win

So while on the surface it appears the 'leavers' are engaged with fighting among itself what we are instead seeing is battle for the soul of the movement. Much is happening behind the scenes not least significant attempts by those inside the M25 to silence blogs like this one.

It has been notable that Elliott has been conspicuous by his absence since the launch of his inept Vote Leave website. Maybe he's realised that his "vision" of a reformed EU would be contrary to Electoral Commission criteria regarding applying for a straight leave campaign.

"Reform" not leave has been an argument he has noted before - here and here. The lack of clarification on leave or reform has been dramatically exposed by Mr Brexit, Elliott is proving to be one of Cameron's useful idiots writes Lost Leonardo.

Maybe concerns over competition for the official designation bid is why the Vote Leave campaign is now taking to plagiarising other material in what appears to be an about turn to try to win designation as Pete North notes. The latest Vote Leave newsletter says:

“We will be publishing a lot of work over the next few weeks about how we can have a better UK-EU relationship. For example, there are important arguments concerning regulation that we will address soon. Vote Leave is not 'a campaign to scrap regulations'.

The arguments concerning regulation are more complex than the media suggests. Further, they have changed over the past 15 years as the global regulatory system has evolved. Many 'EU regulations' actually come from global bodies.

An important argument for leaving the EU is that we would then regain our ability to influence global discussions about global rules at the global level. There are good arguments for having some common global standards, e.g. the modular, standardised shipping container system has been a huge success.

As the global economy integrates and becomes more interdependent, there will be more global rules and platforms. This strengthens the argument for Britain engaging at the global level rather than confining itself to the parochial meeting rooms of Brussels” 

Global regulation? 'Not a campaign to scrap regulations'? Now where have we seen that before? Flexcit - two years in the writing and a document hitherto been dismissed by the likes of Cummings and Elliott.

It's shameless as well as desperate...

EU Referendum, Data Mining And Hong Kong

Designation for the leave campaign means receiving official funding capped at £7million, a considerable sum which allows for more than a few contracts for friends. Designation also means that a large database, called Metis, consisting of millions of the electorate's details can be constructed in a national campaign as Mr Brexit notes. This database will have a lucrative market domestically particularly with the Conservative party and "Elliott's Four" have no qualms in spelling this out.

The AV referendum appears to have been acting as a dry run. During the campaign we can see the Action Centre section of the now defunct website (via Wayback Machine), where widgets could be added to blogs, Facebook and websites. Supportive tweets could be sent directly via the website and donations could be made which required names and addresses. All this information helping to build a database of supporters. Is it a coincidence that subsequently Metis began life in 2013 covering already 500,000 people?

What's interesting is this section of the Privacy Policy on the NotoAV website, (my emphasis): 

We may provide other third parties with information about our users, where this is likely to contribute to a successful outcome in the referendum for our campaign. Where you have not indicated that you agree to such sharing we will only provide third parties with statistical information cannot be used to identify you.

We may engage a third party to help us carry out any of our activities and these third parties may be located in countries that do not provide the same level of protection as is provided in the United Kingdom. We will ensure that these third parties have an obligation to protect your information in the same way that we protect your information.

Curiously one of Matthew Elliott's other business ventures Business for Britain does not have such an explicit "overseas third party" clause.

That NotoAV did begins to make more sense when we consider that Strateusis submitted a number of invoices to the AV campaign including this one below for £7,000 providing Search and Facebook marketing services:

Strateusis is, as we have noted before, registered in Hong Kong. Providing Facebook marketing services would strongly suggest it needs access to the database being accumulated, meaning that a copy of the data would be offshored.

If so this raises further concerns. Hong Kong data protection laws "are miles away" from developments internationally particularly within the EU. The main privacy law is the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap 486) (the Ordinance). But crucially Section 33 of the Ordinance which prohibits the transfer of data overseas has never been enacted, meaning there currently is no effective legal restriction on cross-border data transfers in Hong Kong (Guidance on Section 33 published by the Privacy Commissioner is voluntary and not binding).

NotoAV does try to reassure us that they "will ensure that these [offshore] third parties have an obligation to protect your information in the same way that we protect your information". But given the very suspicious way the campaign was constructed, how can we be so sure?

Voting

I've just visited my local polling station and for the first time ever I've voted for myself (for District Council)- a slightly surreal experience.

Regarding the AV referendum, I was in two minds right up until the last minute of whether to refuse the ballot paper or spoil it with an EU referendum message. I decided on the former - mainly because any messages on spoiled papers will get ignored; a lower turnout sends a better message. The chap at the polling station got a little irritated by my request, he tried to insist that I had to take it (no I don't).

Anyway the upshot is that I haven't partaken in the referendum.

Update: If I had chosen to spoil my ballot paper as indicated above, I was going to take a picture and post it on here. However I find, courtesy of Douglas Carswell, that such actions would have been illegal:

NB. Out of interest, I checked with the Electoral Commission before posting a photo of my ballot paper on line. Apparently, it is legal to do so if you vote by post. But not if you vote in a polling booth. It's unlawful to publish information about what happens in a polling booth.

David Charlatan

Just when you thought Cameron couldn't get any worse, then never underestimate his capacity to prove you wrong. His latest outburst against AV:

The Prime Minister picked the most recent Conservative-only government to illustrate why the proposed Alternative Vote system should be opposed. He said removing tired governments was vital to democracy.

When the country “desperately needed to get rid of that [Labour] government” in 1979, they were able to elect Margaret Thatcher, he said.

“We also remember 1997 and I think we know in 1997 the country needed change. Again it was a decisive result,” he added. His criticism came as a surprise because Mr Cameron is close to Sir John Major and occasionally uses him to support specific policy ideas.

Essentially a current Tory PM is saying that the Tories deserved to lose in 1997? Now that's a rather courageous argument to put forward considering that he has yet to win a general election himself.

Now, ok I can go along with his 'decisive result' claims but this seems at odds with his arguments against AV in February when he said that:

"AV would exaggerate the inherent biases in the current system"

So what is he saying there? He wants a decisive result but not that decisive? And in making his argument he goes on to show astonishing disloyalty to a former Tory Prime Minister that he worked with - most infamously during "Black Wednesday".

You have to wonder how thick the Tories are not to realise that they have bang-to-rights charlatan in their midst.

That's Ok Then?

A No2AV leaflet popped through my door today:

On the front cover it says:

"None of your taxes have been used to print this leaflet"

I think I'm supposed to feel grateful.

AVing a Laugh

hattip: Muffled Vociferation

AV

I made my feelings on the upcoming AV referendum clear before on this blog, I take no interest in it, and my experience so far is that the vast majority of people don't give a toss either - only those cosseted away in the coalition.

It does amuse me though the lack of intellectual discussion scaremongering being employed, take this latest video against AV featuring the fictional MP Alan B'stard:



It's key points? AV means apparently:

• Politicians don't keep their promises
  
  
• An excuse to blame the other lot
  
  
• Say unpopular measures are in the national interest
  
  
• Not ever saying sorry
  
  
• ...the great thing about a fudged coalition is...

And the difference with FPTP is? Truly desperate stuff.

Where's The Real Referendum?

The proposed referendum on our electoral system, that no party stood for at the last election and that no-one wants, including the Lib Dems, has finally passed the Lords. The vote for either AV or First Past the Post will be held on May 5th.

I, however, will not partake. I intend to spoil the ballot with the words; "where's our EU referendum". My reasons are simple.

In 2005, 631 out of 646 MPs stood on a manifesto promise of a referendum on the EU constitution (in fact the EU - and related issues - is the subject that has the most promised referenda on).

Here's the Labour manifesto from 2005 (page 84):

It is a good treaty for Britain and for the new Europe.We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign whole-heartedly for a ‘Yes’ vote to keep Britain
a leading nation in Europe.

And the Lib Dems manifesto (page 27):

We are therefore clear in our support for the constitution, which we believe is in Britain’s interest – but ratification must be subject to a referendum of the British people.

And the Tories (page 26):

We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election.

and Cameron on the Lisbon Treaty (my emphasis):

Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.

Of course we all know how worthless these promises turned out to be, a referendum asked for and voted on by the electorate was ignored. Conversely we now have one that wasn't promised. The utter arrogant conceit of the political classes is astonishing, but not surprising. There's plenty of weasel words like 'cleaning up politics' and 'accountability blah blah blah', but they have no interest in cleaning up politics at all. If there was a genuine desire to reform and improve the electoral system then the referendum would be on all available election procedures: AV, AV+, STV or FPTP. Allow the British people to decide.

Instead we are only granted a referendum on their terms; we end up with a 'miserable little compromise' where the only choice is between what we currently have and a system that no-one wants or genuinely supports. It truly is insulting to our intelligence.

Why should we take part in such a sanctimonious sham? I say we don't. Avoid voting, make the result as low as possible by spoiling your ballot paper. I'm proud to say my ballot paper will be emblazoned with the words:

Where's my EU referendum?

I hope I won't be the only one.

Democracy Labour Style

While I was doing something infinitely more interesting, Labour's soporific leadership election came to an end, with the winner being 'Red Ed' He won by:

• losing the MP vote
• losing the MEP vote
• losing the party members vote.

Ain't the Alternative Voting system great?