NIGEL Farage’s party are set to pocket more than £160,000 from fielding ‘ghost’ candidates in Scotland in the General Election.
According to the Sunday Mail, the controversial move by Reform UK will allow them to claim “short money” from parliamentary finances for every area where they secured at least 5% of the total votes.
Reform fielded 57 candidates in Scotland but many of them did no campaigning and eight didn’t live in the country.
Farage’s party won five seats in the General Election but none in Scotland.
George Havenhand, senior legal researcher at campaign group, Spotlight on Corruption, told the paper: “Short money was introduced to level the playing field for opposition parties, not to fill their coffers through paper candidates running hopeless and potentially disingenuous campaigns.
“The fact that candidates don’t need to prove their identity to stand in an election, and that the Electoral Commission can’t investigate makes this all the more troubling.”
READ MORE: Glasgow Reform UK candidate Helen Burns tracked down in East Midlands
He suggested a review of political finance laws was required.
Short money is given to opposition parties who get at least one MP elected with more than 150,000 votes.
To qualify for short money, a party’s candidate - regardless of whether they win the seat - has to get at least 5% of the total votes cast.
Once this threshold is met they get the £500 deposit for standing refunded and their party also gets £44.53 for every 200 votes that candidate received.
In Scotland 48 Reform candidates met the threshold and together secured 147,947 votes meaning Farage’s party will get £32,940 from their Scottish efforts every year of the parliament.
If it lasts for its five-year term, Reform will end up with £165,000 in total from the taxpayer.
Of the 57 candidates in Scotland only 10 had their photograph on Reform’s website or any description of why they were seeking election.
When The National spoke to party election agent David Stark - who ran in Rutherglen - he told us he had never met several of the candidates who ran in Glasgow.
(Image: Peston)
Reform UK chairman Richard Tice (above) said he was "steaming mad" last week when the party were facing accusations of fielding "AI candidates".
One of its members who stood in the Falkirk seat, Keith Barrow, admitted he’d never campaigned here and described himself as a “paper candidate”.
He is from North Shropshire, as was Glasgow North East candidate Jonathan Walmsley.
READ MORE: Reform UK election agent 'never met' Glasgow ghost candidates
Barrow said he’d worked as a swimming coach and achieved success during the Commonwealth Games at the Tollcross swimming pool in the city and he had “fond memories”.
He said: “I was more of a paper candidate to be honest with you.
“With the General Election being called at the last minute it meant a lot of people were selected last minute. That’s all I want to say.”
Coatbridge and Bellshill candidate Fionna McRae is listed as living near Nottingham, in the South Derbyshire area, along with Glasgow South West candidate Morag McRae.
Voters speculated Glasgow North candidate Helen Burns didn’t exist due to her lack of online presence. She lives in a village in North West Leicestershire and is not believed to have come to Scotland during the campaign.
Hamilton and Clyde Valley hopeful Lisa Judge also lives in North West Leicestershire and had a similar lack of input or detail provided about her.
Inverclyde and Renfrewshire West nominee Simon Moorehead lives 250 miles from Inverclyde where he hoped to become an MP.
He is listed as living in the Tatton constituency which is between Liverpool and Manchester.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel