That is what Paul Waugh is reporting on his new blog...
"The Commission has decided that the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 has not been broken because all of the money was given to the Labour Party in London as a whole rather than to Mr Livingstone directly. But the watchdog has decided that the wording of the Mayor's website has to change to avoid giving the impression that gifts would be handed directly to him."
So Mr Livingstone is within the rules but is guilty of misleading donors as to where the money was going. This is the message that did appear on Livingstone's material:
12.30pm: Greg Hands has issued this statement:
"It is simply outrageous that London voters do not know who is funding Ken Livingstone's expensive campaign for re-election. The whole point of these rules is to allow transparency - yet Livingstone hasn't declared a single donation given to him since 2000. What we do know is that in 2004, he was funded by a mixture of controversial property dealers and the hated Tube unions - but these facts emerged only recently, years later. Londoners need to know who is funding Ken Livingstone and why. In the public interest, he should release details of his donations right now."
Never mind. I am sure there will be some more stories of inappropriate handling of cash before the election.
Posted by: Serf | March 27, 2008 at 12:23
Im more concerned about the money (ie taxpayers money) his office gives out, rather than what he recieves!
Posted by: Conservative Homer | March 27, 2008 at 12:38
Can someone please explain to me how he can use money from the sale of a painting at his famous art auction, when the buyer was anonymous. Ok the donor is the artist, but sure this is a way of giving money without declaring who are the cash donors.
Posted by: top of the shit | March 27, 2008 at 14:16
To be fair to Ken (it is hard) he is in exactly the same position as all other candidates in respect of donations of less than £5k made to the central parties which will then be donated by the centre(s) to individual candidates.
I should be interested to know the procedure by which Boris is checking the permissibilty of donations made directly to him from donors outside of the GLA area.ie how does he check the electoral registers?
Posted by: Postal vote farmer | March 27, 2008 at 14:16
Yeah, & we should know who the people who fund the Tories via the Midlands Industrial Council are too (talking of 'outrageous').
Posted by: Henry | March 27, 2008 at 16:41
Ken Livingston was not elected as a Labour candidate in 2000 but was in 2004. In whose name or organisation were donations prior to 2004 made.
Concerned voter
Posted by: David Matthews | March 27, 2008 at 16:49
Serf is quite right - look at this! The Evening Standard [of 28 March] have this story regarding: "A £20,000 donation to Ken Livingstone's 2004 re-election campaign from train drivers' union Aslef was never publicly declared, it was claimed today."
Link:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-mayor/article-23466986-details/%C2%A320%2C000+Aslef+donation+%27is+not+on+Ken+register%27/article.do
Posted by: Jill, London | March 29, 2008 at 00:17
Today, in The Independent, he's back!
"But when we get onto the issues, I get worried. I ask him why he supported Section 28, the notorious legislation that banned teachers from “promoting” homosexuality – and it quickly becomes clear he doesn’t actually know what it was. “As I recall the issue was to do with compulsion. Wasn't the question [about] whether or not schools should be compelled to have [these lessons]? I thought the issue was: are you compelling teachers in schools to take a particular line? I'm not in favour of that… There’s far too much proscription already of what teachers have to say and do. I’m against bossiness”
But Boris, I explain – Section 28 was the act of bossiness and proscription. It was a flat-out ban, telling teachers not to talk about gays. He goes into his ‘oh cripes’ routine, as if it is charming that he supported a piece of legislation he had totally misunderstood."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/im-a-polymorphous-pervert-boris-and-his-mayoral-rivals-make-their-case-for-the-gay-vote-802355.html
Posted by: Bumbling Boris | March 29, 2008 at 15:26
Re Johann Hari's article in "The Independent" - Hari appears to be presenting himself as a one-man hustings for gay men. There are detailed responses from Boris, and Comrade Livingstone, but Paddick's are just skimmed over. That's hardly good journalism. And fellow Lefty journalist Nick Cohen branded Hari "deceitful" over a book review. Link:http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=248
Posted by: Jill, London | March 30, 2008 at 19:01
Oh, yes, "the Comrades," "ammo," yes, sloanes-who-work-for-Boris-Johnson and who-don't-understand-what-he-has-got-himself-into should, perhaps, reflect on why he doesn't understand Section 28 and, barely, understands why he had to change his position on it.
Posted by: Jack, London | March 30, 2008 at 22:42
"Jack, London" - What is your problem apart from personally disliking Boris Johnson?
Posted by: Jill, London | March 30, 2008 at 23:36
Surely a fairly simple rule change would stop anyone from behaving like Ken has? Why is the establishment so unbelievably poor at responding to these kinds of situations?
Posted by: Letters From A Tory | March 31, 2008 at 13:27
What's not to like about Boris Johnson? Great jokes. Good sense of humour.
But it is a bit boring to have to listen to someone try to remember why they voted for a piece of homophobic legislation. I mean, what's the point when there is a great candidate out there in the form of Madonna? Brilliant singer, great hits, sound anti-Ken policies and none of the boring being in a political party stuff. She's even married to the son of Shireen Ritchie.
Posted by: Jack, London | March 31, 2008 at 22:50