Tory expenses scandal MPs in precarious position

“Conservative MPs accused of breaking election spending rules at the last election face the possibility of being prosecuted by the Crown while they are in the middle of fighting their re-election campaigns at this year’s general election.

14 police forces have sent files to the Crown Prosecution Service relating to the Tory 2015 ‘battle bus’ scheme, which it has been alleged led to Tory candidates breaking strict spending limits on elections.

The CPS is currently reviewing the evidence and considering whether to charge the MPs with breaking the election spending limits, which are put in place to prevent those with wealthy backers from gaining an unfair advantage during general elections.

A spokesperson for the CPS confirmed to The Independent on Tuesday evening that any charges would have to be made before the date of the general election, which Theresa May wants to hold on 8 June subject to a vote in Parliament tomorrow.

This means the CPS’s announcement must by law fall while the MPs are campaigning for re-election, before 8 June.

No charges have yet been made against any MP. All 14 police forces who sent files to the CPS last year applied for a 12 month extension to the prosecution deadline, which would have otherwise elapsed last summer.

Channel 4 News reported on Tuesday evening that the CPS is considering prosecution against over 30 individuals with regards to 2015 election expenses.

As a result, a decision has to be made by the CPS by late May or early June, meaning that any charges will land during at least the long election campaign period, and possibly even the short campaign.

Police forces who have sent files to the CPS relating to the spending allegations include Avon & Somerset, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon & Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Greater Manchester, Lincolnshire, the Metropolitan, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire and West Yorkshire.

Two dozen Conservatives are understood to be under investigation over claims that they did not include battle bus spending in their local campaign returns. The Electoral Commission is also investigating the allegations in parallel to the police.

The allegations centre on whether spending on hotels for visiting activists and certain campaign material was incorrectly registered as national spending rather than locally – potentially illegitimately taking advantage of a higher spending ceiling.

A Conservative spokesman said: “We are cooperating with the ongoing investigations.”

There have been suggestions that other parties may have failed to register similar spending in their local areas too.

In theory election results in individual seats could be declared invalid if laws are found to have been broken, though this is not an automatic process.

In recent weeks some Conservative MPs have hit out at party officials who they say have dodged blame for the fiasco at the expense of MPs’ reputation.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-election-fraud-prosecutions-cps-election-campaign-result-overturn-battle-bus-a7689801.html

“There’s going to be a general election, so let’s talk about the Tory MPs still under investigation for election fraud”

“Theresa May has announced a snap election on 8 June 2017. But as the country prepares for another election campaign, it’s important to remember that MPs in her party are being investigated for election fraud for the 2015 general election. And given the mainstream media’s reluctance to report the issue, we need to ensure it is kept firmly on the agenda.

Allegations of fraud

12 police forces have submitted files to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) over allegations that up to 20 MPs and/or their agents broke election spending limits in the 2015 election. The CPS is deciding whether charges should be brought. And a decision is expected soon – and is likely to come during the election campaign.

The allegations centre around the ‘battle bus’ campaign, and associated expenses such as hotel rooms. Many argue that the campaign promoted prospective local MPs in key seats. Under election law, any expenditure which promotes a local candidate should be covered locally. But the ‘battle bus’ and associated costs were declared nationally. Each constituency has a fixed amount of money it can spend locally. And including the ‘battle bus’ expenditure would have meant many candidates overspent.

Additionally, the Election Commission fined the Conservatives £70,000 for multiple breaches in connection to election spending during the 2015 campaign.

And there’s more

But it isn’t just the “battle bus” campaigns where the Conservatives have been accused of fraud. As The Canary previously reported, there are questions over how the party used social media and, particularly, Facebook, to target voters.

And a report by the London School of Economics has also warned [pdf] that Facebook targeting opens the door to electoral fraud:

The ability to target specific people within a particular geographic area gives parties the opportunity to focus their attention on marginal voters within marginal constituencies. This means, in practice, that parties can direct significant effort – and therefore spending – at a small number of crucial seats. Yet, though the social media spending may be targeted directly at those constituencies, and at particular voters within those constituencies, the spending can currently be defined as national, for which limits are set far higher than for constituency spending.
Implications

Theresa May might think she is avoiding difficult byelections if charges are brought in any of the constituencies. But she is equally taking a huge risk. There is a possibility that she will be running an election campaign while MPs are facing fraud charges. And then there’s the question of whether those MPs and their agents will run in this election.

Either way, the British public get to choose whether they want to vote for a party being investigated for fraud; and a party that’s already been fined £70,000 for election expenses breaches. But in order to do so, it is essential we do not allow the issue to be swept under the table.”

Source: https://www.thecanary.co/2017/04/18/theres-going-general-election-lets-talk-20-tory-mps-still-investigation-election-fraud/

Is Brexit your only concern in East Devon for the next General Election?

If so, Tories or UKIP will undoubtedly satisfy you.

However, if you are equally (or more) concerned about the underfunding of the NHS, school, adult social care and child services, non-existent affordable housing, then that will not be the party for you.

Think carefully. Brexit will go ahead however you vote, underfunding of local services (and the constant financing of vanity projects) will continue if you vote Conservative and they form a majority government.

What to do if you value local services and an MP who will (a) be here and (b) fight these cuts is: in a safe or marginal seat which a Conservative might win – vote for whoever is most likely to come second, except UKIP, whose local policies veer between the very vague and the crazy – in Somerset a UKIP county candidate believes all problems in the NHS are caused by having too many women doctors and he has not been contradicted or thrown out by their national party.

In East Devon this is certainly local Independent Claire Wright ( presuming she stands again); in Honiton and Tiverton it is, perhaps surprisingly, Labour, though much depends on who else stands there in June.

You really do have one chance this year to make local issues count.

Should MPs have their main home in their constituencies?

We are in the difficult situation in that neither of our MPs – Swire and Parish – have homes in the constituencies they represent. Swire has his second home in Mid-Devon and Parish has his farm in Somerset.

We must assume that Swire’s main home is in London, as he travels widely for his extra jobs and his wife works for him at the Houses of Parliament where he pays her a salary of £35,000 (Parish also employs his wife to work for him there as a “junior secretary” on around £20,000).

Can an MP truly understand the needs of his or her constituency if he or she does not live there?

Should living in the constituency be a requirement of the job (though Swire says it isn’t a job, making it sound in his case as more of a hobby)?

Should the home in the constituency be automatically assessed for their expenses as their main home? This would mean that MPs would be more likely to rent in London – which would not only give them a better appreciation of the cost of living in the city but might also make it more likely that they would spend more time in their constituencies.

Should they have to put in minimum hours IN their constituencies? NOT having half a dozen quick photo opportunities on Fridays when Parliament doesn’t sit and they get away early for their weekend breaks.

Should they have to attend a minimum number of surgeries per month/year to qualify for their salaries and jobs?

Should they have zero-hours contracts? No work for the constituency, no MPs pay?

Of course, if we had a truly local MP such as Claire Wright – born, raised and living in the constituency, steeped in the day to day concerns such as local hospitals, education and social care and with a daughter at school here – it wouldn’t be such a problem.