Labour Leave’s £18,500 payment to UKIP was a DONATION, according to Electoral Commission rules

It seems the headline on This Site’s article about Labour Leave’s payment to UKIP was premature – we didn’t get the facts from Kate Hoey MP on the BBC’s Daily Politics show, because the Electoral Commission has stated categorically that her explanation is not permitted.

With this in mind, This Writer supports the Skwawkbox’s continued inquiries. Once we have seen everything they turn up, we’ll be able to consider whether the Labour MPs who were part of Labour Leave should be suspended on suspicion of supporting another party, while an internal investigation takes place.

Oh, and the police should be contacted at some point. Considering their lacklustre behaviour with regard to Tory election fraud, it will probably be best to gather all the evidence in advance, for them.

Early yesterday the SKWAWKBOX revealed information from a UKIP source indicating that MP Kate Hoey’s explanation for the sum of £18,500 registered as a donation from Labour Leave (an independent limited company ‘borrowing‘ the Labour name, from here on ‘LL’) to UKIP – that it was a repayment of shared referendum spending –was not credible.

That article ended with this writer saying he would be contacting the Electoral Commission (EC) to get their assessment of the situation and Ms Hoey’s explanation. This was duly done.

This author was referred to the Working Together for EU Referendum Campaigners‘Situations and Procedures’ document and advised that there is no provision in that document for cost-sharing to be treated, or reported, as a donation. Based on this information, Ms Hoey was peddling prime hogwash.

Also of interest was the fact that, as the EC pointed out, any joint campaign spending – as neither Labour Leave nor UKIP was the official ‘designated lead campaign group’ (which, for the leave side, was Vote Leave), any joint spending has to be counted in total toward the reported spending of both campaigns/parties.

In other words, if Labour Leave spent £18,500 each on campaigning, their spending reports must report £37,000 for that campaigning. If they campaigned with any other groups, the spending of that group must be added to the total and the total reported by allthose groups toward their individual spending.

It seems to be clear that Ms Hoey’s explanation for the donation doesn’t hold water, as there is no provision for it in the regulations.

Source: What the electoral commission said re #LabourLeave’s £18,500 #UKIP donation | The SKWAWKBOX

Join the Vox Political Facebook page.

If you have appreciated this article, don’t forget to share it using the buttons at the bottom of this page. Politics is about everybody – so let’s try to get everybody involved!

Vox Political needs your help!
If you want to support this site
but don’t want to give your money to advertisers)
you can make a one-off donation here:

Donate Button with Credit Cards

Buy Vox Political books so we can continue
fighting for the facts.

The Livingstone Presumption is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

Health Warning: Government! is now available
in either print or eBook format here:

HWG PrintHWG eBook

The first collection, Strong Words and Hard Times,
is still available in either print or eBook format here:


2 thoughts on “Labour Leave’s £18,500 payment to UKIP was a DONATION, according to Electoral Commission rules

  1. William Russell Jones

    I think Harold Wilson had it correct all those years ago at the time when he said,at the time of the original EU vote in 1975,members were free to campaign against what the Party had decided to support.He said they were free to do so provided they didn’t appear on the same platform as those who they wouldn’t be seen dead with politically!

    However the allegations here cover those who you would literally kill politically!

  2. Barry Davies

    So the Electoral commission’s explained the regulations in force then how on earth could the Police investigate a matter when clearly there is no criminal act to investigate?

Comments are closed.