EU Referendum: Vote To Leave?

 

We wouldn't advise, on a professional basis, that a website emblazoned largely with black would be conducive to try to successfully advertise a campaign, let alone portray a positive image of trying to leave the EU. Perhaps maybe Elliott's close associate and "IT expert" Jag Singh knows better:

So I’ve carved a niche as an “online electioneer” and “digital strategist” – the go-to-guy for when campaigns and organisations want to win over the hearts and minds of people

This blog has never been impressed with the self-promoting statements of Singh particularly when, despite being a "Senior Advisor for Hillary Clinton for President" among other claims, he's a surprisingly difficult man to pin down via the internet. For an “online electioneer” it's odd that attempting to get to grips fully with his online profile proves to be somewhat elusive.

So for a highly paid digital expert it comes as a surprise that first observations of the "voteleave" website mean we note that much of the text is unreadable particularly when such text, for example, is written over pictures of Cameron's face (below):

This surely is about as amateur as it gets when it comes to website design. And perhaps the "Vote Leave" is the only website which could make a picture of a murmuration of starlings - one of nature's wonders - look unsightly:

The "scrolling" text at the top of the website gives the distinct impression of a design made by an overzealous 12 year old who has discovered HTML script for the first time. If this is an example of the supposed "campaigning genius" of Elliott and his friend Singh, then we can expect Elliott to lose the leave campaign and lose it heavily, if he is given the official designation. We sometimes wonder in these circumstances whether that might be the point - he 'accidentally' loses which helps to facilitate further his Tory career. 

Further concerns come in the form of the "voteleave" website which looks suspiciously like a certain website by Strateusis.com albeit one designed with different colours. The horizontal "bar" structure is the same and the coding is little different. The subsequent invoices would be interesting to investigate, as it has been before.

It's also interesting and very revealing that Elliot, who the media have clearly promoted as a shoo-in for being designated as the official EU Leave campaign, has had to launch his "leave" campaign earlier than expected as a response to the emergence of the campaign by Arron Banks. 

Elliott, the darling of the media which is the consequence of a sustained campaign of patronage, is quoted on Reuters as saying:

"We will be the main out campaign," Elliott told Reuters. He said the campaign would be launched imminently.

Aside from such arrogance Elliott's hasty launch amounts to little more than a re-branding of his previous campaign to try to enrich his mates - a re-branding which has had to occur rather sharpish with reflection of the Electoral Commission's recommendations that the question will not be between an "in" or "out" option but between "remain" or "leave".

With the rushed and what is apparently the unexpected launch of Elliot's campaign to try to receive official designation, many of our observations have come to pass regarding the potential lack of quality of his campaign. We wonder why the campaign apparently believes that having a dark designed website would be attractive to "soft" voters who are crucial to winning the referendum.

Perhaps winning a referendum is less important than close associates of Matthew Elliott, such as Jag Singh, being able to build a voter database which can become extremely lucrative subsequent to a referendum.

Thus it appears that Elliott's campaign appears to have carried on where he started off with the AV referendum with no real concept of how to actually win a referendum - where he made such a shambles of it he had to be bailed out by the Prime Minister. Cameron was forced to intervene despite that all party leaders were anticipating to take a back seat.

It was a shambles which was due to incompetence and received warranted acute criticism even by those on his own side who were paid £3,333 per month by the No2AV campaign (page 54).

But then as we have seen Elliott seems not to be interested in the EU but more interested in constructing a web of companies which help facilitate financial gain with his friends. As EUReferendum writes not only is the silence revealing but so is the pressure to silence us:

It seems that I am not allowed to criticise the current Elliott operations, or express criticism of any of his supporters, such as Daniel Hannan. The writ is extensive, restraining me from offering critiques in any form, actual or implied - even when no names are mentioned. I am even required to censor my son, Peter, and ensure that he refrains from hostile comment. 

Such has been the pressure that I have even had complaints about pieces I hadn't written, on blogs I do not control.

An indication of the uneasiness in the Elliott camp comes via Breitbart:

The Vote Leave Take Control campaign says it won’t be paying salaries of more than £99,000 a year, so donors know their money is being spent on campaigning. Well, that’s awkward, and it shows that Mr Elliott and his friends are concerned with allegations popping up on the internet concerning the finances behind the last referendum campaign Mr Elliott ran: the NO2AV one.

With this in mind it's also very intriguing that Matthew Elliot does not appear on the website as the CEO despite that he is. Why is there not a statement on the website from him as the CEO including a picture with his team? Why the secrecy? 

This becomes even more curious when we see that he owns, alongside Dominic Cummings, the company behind the website. A company which is not a charity but a limited company.

Then there is the potential that a very useful and extensive database can be built acquired via a national referendum which can be laundered through Hong Kong, and then offered back to the UK as an offshore product.

We would strongly recommend that any personal details are not given over to any Elliott campaign.

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?