Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
It is becoming a bigger story by the day due to Farage's refusal to give straight answers to simple questions.
Bluffing and blustering, and accusing The Times of politically motivated attacks on his party is guaranteeing that the questions will keep on coming.
Until or unless Farage comes clean, campaigning will become increasingly difficult. Every time he or a senior party figure appears in front of a journalist the same questions will be asked again and again.
Farage needs to change his tactics and response to the allegations or this will bring him down.
Yeah Righto
The only people excited by it are desperate Conservatives. Almost every media outlet is saying its no big deal. Last night on Sky's press preview they said it actually added to Farages appeal.
At the risk if repeating myself, this ain't Westminster expenses or anything like it. Plenty worse has been flung at ukip before and still they get bigger and bigger
Sam
That is no defence to allegations of fraud. For UKIP or for any political party.
Maria Miller went through a sixteen month formal investigation, report and review by official standards authorities. All the evidence was summarised, argued over and published. She was formally cleared of charges. Yet still the 'court of public opinion' brought her down.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
Can't you see this?
The appropriate body would be the EU. They cleared Mr Farage this Monday, for the charges The Times was peddling last month.
Mr Hannan thinks they'd refuse to proceed with The Times current effort too.
"OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud office, will not find against the Ukip leader. This is because the sum in question is an allowance, not a claim. It is handed over unconditionally"
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
It is becoming a bigger story by the day due to Farage's refusal to give straight answers to simple questions.
Bluffing and blustering, and accusing The Times of politically motivated attacks on his party is guaranteeing that the questions will keep on coming.
Until or unless Farage comes clean, campaigning will become increasingly difficult. Every time he or a senior party figure appears in front of a journalist the same questions will be asked again and again.
Farage needs to change his tactics and response to the allegations or this will bring him down.
Avery, you really do not understand what is happening here do you?
According to the ludicrous EU rules MEP's are given this money and according to Tory Dan Hannan (I presume because he is a Tory you will believe him) there is no mechanism to return any surplus. Apparently when Clegg was an MEP he ran a surplus and realising he could not return it I think used it to fund his office.
All this whole business is doing is highlighting how the EU throw money around with no accountability, which can only be good for Farage, but this seems to be beyond the wit of the desperate Tories on here.
We are not talking about returning allowances or the merits or otherwise of an allowance system.
The allegations are that Farage and UKIP were in receipt of public monies which may not have been used in accordance with the guidelines published by the EP.
It is a very simple matter for Farage to state the amount of funds he received and how they were spent. Simply stating that surpluses were used to fund party activities is insufficient as an explanation especially without any evidence or paper trail.
This is a straight forward accounting and reporting issue.
Nothing is straightforward as far as the EU is concerned, they do not require receipts and you must know that. As I said all this does is highlight the largesse displayed with public funds and Farage has done absolutely nothing wrong.
Only a desperate and gullible Tory could think otherwise.
Until a few weeks ago the idea the LDs might fail to poll 9.091% in the SE region would have seemed bonkers. It's still very difficult to imagine it happening, but it's not impossible.
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Avery, you do realise that Tory MPs are up to their necks in financing their local parties with Vote Office money. There was a delightful list of them on the previous thread.
You do realise that pursuing this matter will bring down your party completely?
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
No, it won't.
Perhaps this episode has highlighted to you why us kippers hate the EU so much. It is corrupt, unaccountable and undemocratic, I am amazed you did not recognise this previously but hopefully Farage has helped you.
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
The Times can try to start another investigation with the EU then. They obviously know the procedure, because they tried that path last month.
Until a few weeks ago the idea the LDs might fail to poll 9.091% in the SE region would have seemed bonkers. It's still very difficult to imagine it happening, but it's not impossible.
Oh quite, but under D'Hondt they may well fail that hurdle and still easily win a seat.
Ergo, I would have thought the chance of a seat (in the SE at least) is high, depending on your preferred definition of "high".
To win a seat (other than by achieving the guarantee of the Droop quota), the LDs require that the integer multiples of their own vote of the parties ranked higher than them sum to less than 10.
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral
Think you'll find that should be " A UK political party"
There are no rules just conventions on the use of "an".
It was originally used for all words beginning with a vowel but subsequently became pronunciation dependent, so that words such as United (juˈnʌɪtɪd) (as in UK) were the first to drop the 'n' due to the sound pronounced being a 'ju'. An is also acceptably used in fron of words beginning with consonants such as a 's'. An example would be "an SOS signal". Another more common example would "an hotel", but here the reasoning is that the word begins with a consonant but is sounded as if beginning with a vowel. An 'otel or /ən (or an) həʊˈtɛl/. Some people say 'otel others aspirate to hotel. Some people say Garage some Garidge.
So there is differing acceptable practice. An UK is not wrong, it is just less commonly used than A UK. Both are correct,
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Dream on, dreamer
It is not a dream, it is a nightmare.
Look at the alleged source of the claims against UKIP, Jasna Badzak. Her most recent tweet is:
Now UKIP can respond to such an allegation in two ways.
1. It can discredit the source of the allegation by correctly stating that Ms. Badzak is a former contract employee who was charged and convicted for fraud against the party and who now appears to be waging a vexatious vendetta against her former employer; or,
2. UKIP can prove the allegations to be false by instructing an independent and qualified auditor to inspect the party's books and bank accounts and make a public statement on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made.
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral
Think you'll find that should be " A UK political party"
There are no rules just conventions on the use of "an".
It was originally used for all words beginning with a vowel but subsequently became pronunciation dependent, so that words such as United (juˈnʌɪtɪd) (as in UK) were the first to drop the 'n' due to the sound pronounced being a 'ju'. An is also acceptably used in fron of words beginning with consonants such as a 's'. An example would be "an SOS signal". Another more common example would "an hotel", but here the reasoning is that the word begins with a consonant but is sounded as if beginning with a vowel. An 'otel or /ən (or an) həʊˈtɛl/. Some people say 'otel others aspirate to hotel. Some people say Garage some Garidge.
So there is differing acceptable practice. An UK is not wrong, it is just less commonly used than A UK. Both are correct,
Incidentally, the dynamics of D'Hondt combined with the present district magnitudes shows that the barrage is, for all realistic purposes, unnecessary...
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral
Think you'll find that should be " A UK political party"
There are no rules just conventions on the use of "an".
It was originally used for all words beginning with a vowel but subsequently became pronunciation dependent, so that words such as United (juˈnʌɪtɪd) (as in UK) were the first to drop the 'n' due to the sound pronounced being a 'ju'. An is also acceptably used in fron of words beginning with consonants such as a 's'. An example would be "an SOS signal". Another more common example would "an hotel", but here the reasoning is that the word begins with a consonant but is sounded as if beginning with a vowel. An 'otel or /ən (or an) həʊˈtɛl/. Some people say 'otel others aspirate to hotel. Some people say Garage some Garidge.
So there is differing acceptable practice. An UK is not wrong, it is just less commonly used than A UK. Both are correct,
Until a few weeks ago the idea the LDs might fail to poll 9.091% in the SE region would have seemed bonkers. It's still very difficult to imagine it happening, but it's not impossible.
Oh quite, but under D'Hondt they may well fail that hurdle and still easily win a seat.
Ergo, I would have thought the chance of a seat (in the SE at least) is high, depending on your preferred definition of "high".
To win a seat (other than by achieving the guarantee of the Droop quota), the LDs require that the integer multiples of their own vote of the parties ranked higher than them sum to less than 10.
So one important factor could obviously be whether the Greens beat the LDs in the SE.
Until a few weeks ago the idea the LDs might fail to poll 9.091% in the SE region would have seemed bonkers. It's still very difficult to imagine it happening, but it's not impossible.
Oh quite, but under D'Hondt they may well fail that hurdle and still easily win a seat.
Ergo, I would have thought the chance of a seat (in the SE at least) is high, depending on your preferred definition of "high".
To win a seat (other than by achieving the guarantee of the Droop quota), the LDs require that the integer multiples of their own vote of the parties ranked higher than them sum to less than 10.
So one important factor will obviously be whether the Greens beat the LDs in the SE.
In 2009 it was LDs 14.1%, Greens 11.6%.
True, it's a factor. But as I think we've shown, neither necessary nor sufficient for the LDs to win a seat.
Incidentally, the dynamics of D'Hondt combined with the present district magnitudes shows that the barrage is, for all realistic purposes, unnecessary...
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
An UK political party is not simply accountable to the EP, it is also accountable under UK law and to regulatory bodies, such as the Electoral Commission which has statutory powers over matters such as party funding.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Avery, you do realise that Tory MPs are up to their necks in financing their local parties with Vote Office money. There was a delightful list of them on the previous thread.
You do realise that pursuing this matter will bring down your party completely?
The reason you know that the Tory MPs are "financing their local parties with Vote Office money" is because accounts are made available to the public.
Whether it is proper practice is a matter for the appropriate regulatory authorities.
I am neither condoning nor criticising the practice. It is clearly a matter for debate and decision.
The issue I have with Farage and UKIP is lack of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. I am not saying he has abused public funds or broken any regulation or law, just that we cannot tell whether he has unless he discloses what happened to the money.
Now UKIP can respond to such an allegation in two ways.
1. It can discredit the source of the allegation by correctly stating that Ms. Badzak is a former contract employee who was charged and convicted for fraud against the party and who now appears to be waging a vexatious vendetta against her former employer; or,
2. UKIP can prove the allegations to be false by instructing an independent and qualified auditor to inspect the party's books and bank accounts and make a public statement on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made.
Which do you think is the better way to respond?
Is Badzak the source? I thought part of the whole thing was the allegations came out, UKIP essentially went with option 1 pre-emptively and The Times raised its eyebrows and said she wasn't the source.
Tell us, what do you think about the Farage story? Do you think it's a big story? Let us know.
Farage has not yet even opened his books to public scrutiny or agreed to submit evidence to an appropriate investigatory or standards body.
There can't be an exemption for UKIP and a set of rules and standards for other parties.
It's for the EP to investigate this, though I think the have their hands full looking for that missing elephant.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
Dream on, dreamer
It is not a dream, it is a nightmare.
...
Which do you think is the better way to respond?
Is Badzak the source? I thought part of the whole thing was the allegations came out, UKIP essentially went with option 1 pre-emptively and The Times raised its eyebrows and said she wasn't the source.
Impossible to tell. A quick look at her twitter page would suggest she would have no qualms about being the source.
Given her record and back-story it is unlikely any reputable newspaper would publish any story which is based on information for which she is the sole source. Confirmation of the 'facts' will have been sought from additional and more reliable sources.
Incidentally, the dynamics of D'Hondt combined with the present district magnitudes shows that the barrage is, for all realistic purposes, unnecessary...
Really? I didn't have a clue about that.
Well the clue is...
For a party to be able to win a seat on say 4.99% (or less) under D'Hondt with no barrage, even in the largest District Magnitude constituency the party fragmentation would have to be very much greater than it is at present.
And in the smaller DM constituencies there's no realistic chance.
Like Fermat I will present the proof later... Zzzzs call me, I'm afraid.
A few years back, I used to dip into a UKIP forum frequented by a mix of enthusiastic and idealist new members, as well as some very disgruntled/exasperated former UKIP members. It was around the time of one of their previous internal implosions/meltdowns. There was always plenty of anger and criticism about the lack of proper party organisation at the top back then, and IIRC, this particular story reported by the Times was a very hot topic.
Almost £300,000 in Ukip party donations were paid in to Nigel Farage’s local branch and withdrawn as unspecified “other costs”, raising further questions over the party’s funding.
Ukip insiders have repeatedly raised concerns over £287,734 spent by the party’s southeast branch in 2004 and 2005. The money was not used for campaigning, communications, property rental, utilities or auditing and was described only as “other” running costs, according to accounts filed with the Electoral Commission.
Almost £300,000 in Ukip party donations were paid in to Nigel Farage’s local branch and withdrawn as unspecified “other costs”, raising further questions over the party’s funding.
Ukip insiders have repeatedly raised concerns over £287,734 spent by the party’s southeast branch in 2004 and 2005. The money was not used for campaigning, communications, property rental, utilities or auditing and was described only as “other” running costs, according to accounts filed with the Electoral Commission.
' The money was not used for campaigning, communications, property rental, utilities or auditing and was described only as “other” running costs, according to accounts filed with the Electoral Commission.'
The money must have been spent on those 'banks of computers'.
Bilderballs should be having a field day at the mo crowing about how the current economic situation illustrates his economic argument about stimulus packages.
Of course that would involve talking about where the current economic stimulus package is coming from
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
"Buy an expensive property. Central London's sky-high prices mean you can wash tens of millions of pounds at a time these days. If you need real income, you can live on the rent or, if you have the opposite problem and need to launder more cash, you can claim money is pouring in from fake tenants. In fact, of course, the "rent" is your own ill-gotten booty. "
"When Private Eye asked one former policeman why the bankers aren’t getting arrested for money laundering, the answer was simple: ‘They are untouchable’."
Economic stimulus through abandoning the rule of law. What could possibly go wrong?
How do you think that a UK bank would react to someone depositing £6,000 per week in cash?
"Hello Mr Smithson, good day on the cabinet re-shuffle for you was it"
Bilderballs should be having a field day at the mo crowing about how the current economic situation illustrates his economic argument about stimulus packages.
Of course that would involve talking about where the current economic stimulus package is coming from
"On the Andrew Marr programme on 23rd March 2012, the writer Max Hastings reported a conversation he had had with a ' senior central banker' recently in which he had been told that today, London is considered to be the money laundering capital of the world."
"Buy an expensive property. Central London's sky-high prices mean you can wash tens of millions of pounds at a time these days. If you need real income, you can live on the rent or, if you have the opposite problem and need to launder more cash, you can claim money is pouring in from fake tenants. In fact, of course, the "rent" is your own ill-gotten booty. "
"When Private Eye asked one former policeman why the bankers aren’t getting arrested for money laundering, the answer was simple: ‘They are untouchable’."
Economic stimulus through abandoning the rule of law. What could possibly go wrong?
How do you think that a UK bank would react to someone depositing £6,000 per week in cash?
"Hello Mr Smithson, good day on the cabinet re-shuffle for you was it"
Comments
http://order-order.com/2014/04/15/previous-times-ukip-allowances-report-dismissed/
Mr Hannan thinks they'd refuse to proceed with The Times current effort too.
"OLAF, the EU's anti-fraud office, will not find against the Ukip leader. This is because the sum in question is an allowance, not a claim. It is handed over unconditionally"
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100267778/if-nigel-farages-expenses-bother-you-vote-to-leave-the-eu/
Only a desperate and gullible Tory could think otherwise.
There are 67 counting areas in the south east.
The LDs received less than 9.091% in the following:
1. Crawley 8.0%
2. Dartford 6.9%
3. Gravesham 7.3%
4. Hastings 9.0%
5. Slough 8.9%
6. Swale 9.0%
7. Thanet 7.7%
Overall they polled 14.1%.
Above all, and most importantly, UKIP and all political parties are accountable to the public and their constituents.
This has not yet reached the stage of litigation or formal inquiry, but it is likely to escalate in that direction if Farage persists in not answering simple inquiries with detailed and factual answers.
[Cut off and logged out by Vanilla in mid post! grrrrr!]
NE 17.6%
SW 17.2%
NW 14.3%
SE 14.1%
E 13.8%
GL 13.7%
Y&H 13.2%
EM 12.3%
WM 12.0%
Scotland 11.5%
Wales 10.7%
You do realise that pursuing this matter will bring down your party completely?
Perhaps this episode has highlighted to you why us kippers hate the EU so much. It is corrupt, unaccountable and undemocratic, I am amazed you did not recognise this previously but hopefully Farage has helped you.
Ergo, I would have thought the chance of a seat (in the SE at least) is high, depending on your preferred definition of "high".
To win a seat (other than by achieving the guarantee of the Droop quota), the LDs require that the integer multiples of their own vote of the parties ranked higher than them sum to less than 10.
It was originally used for all words beginning with a vowel but subsequently became pronunciation dependent, so that words such as United (juˈnʌɪtɪd) (as in UK) were the first to drop the 'n' due to the sound pronounced being a 'ju'. An is also acceptably used in fron of words beginning with consonants such as a 's'. An example would be "an SOS signal". Another more common example would "an hotel", but here the reasoning is that the word begins with a consonant but is sounded as if beginning with a vowel. An 'otel or /ən (or an) həʊˈtɛl/. Some people say 'otel others aspirate to hotel. Some people say Garage some Garidge.
So there is differing acceptable practice. An UK is not wrong, it is just less commonly used than A UK. Both are correct,
Look at the alleged source of the claims against UKIP, Jasna Badzak. Her most recent tweet is:
Jasna Badzak @JasnaBadzak 1h
Another great story from Times for tomorrow http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4065517.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_04_16 … Will #Ukip #Farage finally answer why he took this money to Isle of Man?
Now UKIP can respond to such an allegation in two ways.
1. It can discredit the source of the allegation by correctly stating that Ms. Badzak is a former contract employee who was charged and convicted for fraud against the party and who now appears to be waging a vexatious vendetta against her former employer; or,
2. UKIP can prove the allegations to be false by instructing an independent and qualified auditor to inspect the party's books and bank accounts and make a public statement on the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations made.
Which do you think is the better way to respond?
Incidentally, the dynamics of D'Hondt combined with the present district magnitudes shows that the barrage is, for all realistic purposes, unnecessary...
In 2009 it was LDs 14.1%, Greens 11.6%.
Whether it is proper practice is a matter for the appropriate regulatory authorities.
I am neither condoning nor criticising the practice. It is clearly a matter for debate and decision.
The issue I have with Farage and UKIP is lack of transparency and accountability in the use of public funds. I am not saying he has abused public funds or broken any regulation or law, just that we cannot tell whether he has unless he discloses what happened to the money.
I would say the same of any MP, MEP or party.
Given her record and back-story it is unlikely any reputable newspaper would publish any story which is based on information for which she is the sole source. Confirmation of the 'facts' will have been sought from additional and more reliable sources.
For a party to be able to win a seat on say 4.99% (or less) under D'Hondt with no barrage, even in the largest District Magnitude constituency the party fragmentation would have to be very much greater than it is at present.
And in the smaller DM constituencies there's no realistic chance.
Like Fermat I will present the proof later... Zzzzs call me, I'm afraid.
It's not too hard. Have a go yourself.
' The money was not used for campaigning, communications, property rental, utilities or auditing and was described only as “other” running costs, according to accounts filed with the Electoral Commission.'
The money must have been spent on those 'banks of computers'.