Thread by @RobertCPalmer13

Here's the effects of the UNLAWFUL OVERSPEND by Vote Leave. It's based on what's known about VL's campaign methods & their effectiveness.

The EC found in July that both VL & BeLeave breached spending limits, beyond reasonable doubt.

#RevokeArticle50 #PeoplesVote
1.

Vote Leave: The EC concluded that Mr Halsall & VL committed offences under s. 118(2)(c) PPERA 2000. Halsall incurred spending of £449,079.34 which he knew or ought reasonably to have known was in excess of the statutory spending limit for VL.

2.

The EC fined VL £20K for the overspend because it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that all of Mr Grimes’ & BeLeave’s spending the ref campaign was incurred under a common plan between Beleave & VL.

3.

BeLeave’s spending limit: The EC concluded that it determined that Darren Grimes committed an offence under s. 117(3) PPERA, and BeLeave committed an offence under s. 117(4) PPERA.

4.

Darren Grimes incurred spending on behalf of BeLeave which 'he knew or ought reasonably to have known' to exceed the statutory limit for a non-registered campaigner by £666,015.87. Both Grimes and VL were fined £20K (the maximum) for these criminal offences & lost on appeal.

5.

These spending offences are, essentially, independent, but, as is commonplace for campaigns with a shared agenda, they develop the same spending & communications strategies. BeLeave’s offence would've transpired even if it hadn't been acting under a ‘common plan’ with VL.

6.

Effectively, the funds used by VL & BeLeave advanced the same campaign. To determine if the offences impacted the ref outcome, we need to compare VL’s campaign in real time (with the excess of £449K) with the campaign they would've pursued had they not've illegally overspent.

7.

VL's digital strategy focused heavily on the final 5 days of the campaign. This was known as the 'Waterloo Strategy'. This strategy is described in detail with charts in a blog posted by Cummings: "On the referendum #22: Some basic numbers for the VL campaign" (30/1/17).

8.

FB advertising was the largest part of VL's net spending. VL 'heavily weighted its digital spending towards the final five days of the campaign' including, in particular, the final day of polling (23/6/16). Social media spending on polling day is central to the evidence.

9.

Britain Stronger In Europe (offical Remain campaign), had ceased spending by polling day cuz it had reached its spending cap. VL benefitted from a price reduction on that day through FB's automated auctioning system, whilst Remain missed the climax of the campaign period.

10.

This is extremely important as in all elections 20-30% of voters decide within 1 week of the vote, half of them on the LAST DAY. Remain (despite best practices to track legally allowed budgets & to time buying ads to coincide with the last hours) had stopped spending by 23/6.

11

VL was continuing to spend beyond its legally allowed budget. A chart from the VL website showed that on 23/6/16 that Facebook ‘impressions’ peaked that day with approx 45m impressions being served on that day alone. Over 40m impressions appear on 22nd and over 30m on 21st.

12.

'Impressions’ refer to how many times an ad is displayed; ‘reach’ is how many ppl view that ad. 1 person may view an impression more than once per day. Approx 24m ppl were being shown 3.5 adverts per person in the final 2 days of the campaign. VL et al had reached their cap.

13.

Based on VL's charts, we can assess how many fewer impressions & how
much less reach VL would have achieved had it spent £449K less than it did. That amount would've paid for all of VL’s digital strategy for the last 2 days, it should've stopped on the afternoon of 21/6/16.

14.

By focusing solely on FB advertising (we have detailed data) Prof Howard calculated that, had VL respected the ref spending limits, 'it would have had to forego 10 days of FB advertising'. It took 10 days for VL’s spending to reach £449K counting back from 23/6/16.

15.

Prof Howard (in expert evidence provided for the court) stated that: 'assuming that all other spending remained constant, foregoing £449K of FB spending would have meant that VL’s FB ads would have had to stop on Monday, 13 June 2016, ten days before the Referendum vote.'

16.

The overspend amounted to:

239 m overall impressions of FB ads in total (over 10 days)
23.9 m impressions of FB ads per day for 10 days (including 23/6)
80.5 m persons reached in total by FB ads
8.05 m people on average reached per day by FB ads per day for 10 days

17.

The overspending by VL was actually spent by BeLeave. Prof Howard considered the effectiveness of BeLeave’s campaign & whether it might've been 'less effective than VL’s campaign' but it becomes clear that 'BeLeave’s
campaign was equally effective'. It was also run by AIQ.

18.

Leave won by 1,269,501 votes. A swing of 634,751 ppl would've reversed the result. Standard industry modelling predicts that 800K voters were converted/persuaded by Leave overspending during the crucial period, when Remain had stopped spending (after reaching their cap).