As Mark Pack reported over on his blog, for the second time allegations over Chris Huhne’s election expenses that were strongly backed by Paul Staines and Harry Cole have collapsed after the Electoral Commission investigated them:
The review concluded that one item had been under-reported by £10.15 (sic) but that otherwise the expenditure in the short and long campaign had been properly recorded and declared.
Regularly readers may recall how stridently both of them attacked people who disagreed with their claims over Huhne’s election expenses (such as in this thread, which includes Paul Staines daring anyone to bet that Chris Huhne would still be a minister on June 1st; he was).
Reading their blog you would be forgiven for not knowing that the Electoral Commission had rejected their claims. That is because they managed to report the Electoral Commission ruling without actually mentioning that it cleared Chris Huhne and rejected their claims.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Has the Chancellor set the tone for a Burnham administration?
"His glamour tarnished, his boorishness came to notice": On being the monarch's second son
Mick Taylor
Nonconformistradical
Tristan Ward
Geoff Reid
8 Comments
On the day it is revealed the Conservatives spent £49 million last year and the Labour party a similar sum, perhaps it is the bigger rules that need looking at. The enforcement of constituency spending limits is fairly meaningless. A much better approach might be to forbid parties from running deficits 😉
You forgot the interesting bit:
Commission Order LibDem Expenses Review
The Electoral Commission have found some irregulatrities between what Chris Huhne declared in his election expenses as “national spending” and what the national Liberal Democrats actually declared. The bad news is for Cowley Street as there is clearly some serious concern over at the Electoral Commission that this practice goes beyond Huhne’s tight marginal constituency:
“The Commission have written to the Liberal Democrat national party asking them to review their procedures and report back to the Commission measures they will implement to avoid a repeat of this in future.”
http://order-order.com/2011/07/27/exclusive-electoral-commission-order-libdem-expenses-review/
That’s weak even for you Guido.
Reading the article above, who would guess that the CPS has just been sent a file relating to a potential charge against Chris Huhne of perverting the course of justice?
And according to press reports, the police now have not only a tape of the infamous phone call, but an affidavit from Vicky Pryce and and text messages from the man himself to his son warning him that his mother might end up “in Holloway.”
Surely the allegations about election expenses are the least of Chris Huhne’s concerns at the moment.
So when Guido’s last lot of mud throughing doesn’t stick you just through a bit more.
It’s obv ious the Tories/Tory press think Chris Huhne could be the next Lib Dem leader after Nick and are trying to upset the apple cart in advance. Ignore them.
Guido Fawkes is the best argument for the print media I’ve ever seen.
It gives me huge pleasure to see stainless Paul Staines thoroughly fawked by losing his bet on Chris being forced out by June 1st.!
He has turned what should be a creditable investigative journalism blog into very personalized witch-hunting.
An investigative journalist is quite dispassionate in his dealings; Satines is not.. He decides on guilt before it is proven. His tone is that of a rottweiller on a scent.
I noticed that in his excitement over the driving allegations he referred to information from his “boy in blue”. If he has obtained confidential information from the police perhaps this contact should be investigated along with the other corrupt police. And his relationship with Fawkws examined.
Elizabeth