eurealist.co.uk

Telegraph | Money | EU rule ‘will add £100m’ to insurance premiums: “EU rule ‘will add £100m’ to insurance premiums”

NE referendum spending revealed. Figures released by the Electoral Commission have revealed that the groups campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in the North East referendum spent twice as much as the ‘no’ campaign. The total ‘yes’ spending revealed so far was over £400,000, but that figure could rise to nearer a million when further figures are released in May. In addition the Government spent over £3 million. ‘No’ campaigners spent roughly £200,000.

Regional assembly campaigners spent £400,000 and lost
By Rod Minchin

GROUPS backing the unpopular North East Regional Assembly spent at least £400,000 on their campaigns only to be humiliated at the polls, it was revealed yesterday.

Figures from the Electoral Commission show that Yes4theNorthEast spent more than £250,000, the Labour Party £125,000 and trade unions £35,000. The final bill, which is likely to be revealed later this year, may be almost £1 million.

Despite vast expenditure and support from a host of senior politicians and celebrities including John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, and Ray Mallon, a former police chief in the North East, the “yes” campaigners received a resounding thumbs-down from voters.

The North East was the first English region to hold a referendum on establishing an assembly. It voted against by 696,519 to 197,310 in the November poll. All 23 council areas in the region produced a “no” vote.

The result was a personal humiliation for Mr Prescott, who has championed the cause of regional government for more than 30 years.

Supporters of the assembly argued that it would help to bring economic regeneration to one of the most deprived parts of the country. Opponents dismissed it as an expensive talking shop with no real powers and portrayed it as a giant white elephant — an image that stuck in voters’ minds.

According to yesterday’s report there were 16 registered campaigners. Expenditure was capped at £100,000 for most. However, registered political parties and organisations designated by the Commission to represent each side of the referendum issue could spend up to £665,000.

The exact amount Yes4theNorthEast spent will not be revealed until later in the year because it spent more than £250,000, but the figure could reach £665,000.

North East Says No, which was the official “no” campaign, spent £142,900; its Sunderland-based “no” rival Neil Herron spent £28,270. The Conservative Party, which had opposed the referendum, spent £30,243.

The Labour Party spent £124,126 and trade unions £35,038

Michael Gove

Whatever the question, the answer is that these watchdogs are wrong

YOU CAN achieve anything in life, I was once told, if you always let someone else take the credit. True or not, it’s rarely been a principle close to Tony Blair’s heart. The man who asked for eye-catching initiatives on crime with which “I can personally be associated” is never going to win the award for Mr Diffident in the All-England Humility Championships.

But the Prime Minister has been happy to shuffle out of the limelight on one crucial question. The new European constitution. Just over a week ago the official question to be asked in the event of a UK referendum on the constitution was published without fanfare by the Government and approved by the Electoral Commission, the body designed to ensure fair play in all referendums and elections. The Government seemed only too happy to have the commission take responsibility for signing off on the question.

The reason why became clear just a few days later, when opinion polls showed that the approved question secured a response that was far more favourable to the EU constitution than any other test of public support. Half of a sample of more than 1,000 people was asked the government question: “Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty for establishing a Constitution for the European Union?” They split 39 per cent-39 per cent for and against. The other half of the sample was asked: “If there were a referendum tomorrow, would you vote for Britain to sign up to the EU Constitution or not?” Opinion in this case was 26 per cent in favour and 54 per cent against.

The Government thus seems to have achieved precisely what it wanted — a question on the ballot paper inviting the answer “yes” — by letting the Electoral Commission take the credit for approving that proposition.

It’s hardly surprising that ministers should be pleased with such a result. What is curious is the Electoral Commission’s role. Because the question produced breaks the rules on fairness on referendums. Which it drew up itself.

The Electoral Commission has noted that in the proposed question the constitution is not given its proper, suitably grandiose, title, “A Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”. The word “approve” is used which breaches the commission’s guidelines by granting the “yes” proposal a positive spin. And the question itself doesn’t make clear that the treaty which the UK is invited to approve doesn’t just apply to the distant EU but will affect Britain, indeed fundamentally change our own laws and constitution.

Yet even though the Electoral Commission’s own guidance has been breached by the Government, the commission itself has done nothing to uphold the rules. It has lent its authority, and therefore the mantle of objectivity, to a question that skews the debate overwhelmingly in one direction.

What makes the Electoral Commission’s role all the more worrying is that this isn’t the first occasion it has declined to police its own rules when the Government has been manipulating referendums. The commission’s first big test was the referendum on a North East assembly last November. From the beginning, voters should have been concerned. The Electoral Commission allowed Labour to press ahead with an all-postal ballot, even though its own work had revealed the potential for abuse in such a system.

And as the campaign went on, the commission signally failed to ensure that ministers stuck to the rules. On the eve of the vote, John Prescott tried to secure support for the “yes” side by announcing a “deal” with the Transport Secretary, Alistair Darling, which would give the new assembly additional powers. Not only did the “deal” apparently change the nature of what was being voted on after weeks of campaigning, it also involved Mr Prescott using his authority as a minister to influence a vote in which tight rules were supposed to limit the ability of Labour ministers to use the machinery of government.

It was a clear occasion where the Electoral Commission might have been expected to enforce its own rules, but no sanction was visited on Mr Prescott, the Government or the “yes” campaign. In the end, of course, the voters of the North East said “no”. But while that question was settled, others have been left hanging.

Who can we look to ensure fairness in future referendum campaigns? If the Electoral Commission won’t police government abuses in a limited referendum, and flunks the first test of its authority, can we really be confident that it will be robust on the much more contentious occasion of a nationwide EU referendum?

In any case, what guarantees do we have that government spending on a “yes” vote will be controlled? What monitoring of the EU’s own propaganda effort is going on? Given that the EU’s own accounts haven’t been properly audited for many years, how can we know that the sums it spends on persuasion are effectively policed?

And if the Electoral Commission approves a question which external testing demonstrates is skewed, how can we be certain it will be vigilant in ensuring that future material produced by the Government is balanced? The Electoral Commission is supposed to provide us with a guarantee of fair play in the most important arena of all — the battleground over who governs us. As a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate, I’m sure that the general election will proceed fairly. But in referendum contests where the Government has all the financial, and other, advantages of incumbency, the watchdog has never barked.

If the Electoral Commission would allow me, I have a question I’d like to ask well before any referendum. Do you think, after everything we’ve seen in the past seven years, and after the campaign tactics of the past seven days, that Mr Blair can be trusted to play fair in all future votes? Or do you think that it’s about time that our constitution was given stronger safeguards against the abuse of government power before we sign up to any other constitutions this Government likes the look of? I shan’t hold my breath for an answer.