Did you know that it is possible for any member of the public to view the election expenses in the May elections? The law states that:
"The Greffier shall make declarations received by him or her under this Law available for inspection, free of charge, at the offices of the Judicial Greffe, during normal working hours."
But they cannot at present publish that information online. A request I made elicited a refusal, along with the following statements:
"In fulfilling its obligations to make the declarations available for inspection, the Judicial Greffe will take any steps necessary to ensure that information is reasonably available to the applicant. In that case, the information is exempt from supply under the FOI law because it is covered by the absolute exemption provided by Article 23 of the FOI law"
And it states: "Information is absolutely exempt information if it is reasonably available to the applicant, otherwise than under this Law, whether or not free of charge."
Reasonably available is a moot point, when you have to go to the Judicial Greffe during office hours - they are closed lunchtime - and get someone who is authorised to be there to deliver a file to you, which they place on a table for you to view.
If you just go there on spec, you may be disappointed. I did the first time, and was told by the receptionist that the person authorised to get it was busy in a meeting, and I should email her, as she was the only one authorised to do so. I did so, and had a reply giving me access at a later time (fortunately I had the afternoon off), and in fact saying that a colleague would get it for me (so much for only one person being authorised to deal with it!). So while every member of the public can legally view expenses, it is not that easy for everyone to do so.
You have to essentially book to view it, and it needs an authorised person, to get out the file, place it on a table for you to view or take notes, and tell you to give it to the receptionist when you are finished. If you are not working, you may well have the spare time for all this, if like myself, you are employed, it is more difficult.
In the UK, of course, election expenses are available online and have been for some time.
Because I had limited time, and was scribbling madly, there may be errors in what follows. Each expense form is made from direct expenses, and notional expenses and donations. Notional expenses are when someone supplies services or work at below the market rate, or even at no cost, so that a notional cost of what they would be is placed on the form. This is to ensure a level playing field.
For example, Kristina Moore had £8,224.54 direct expenses plus £1,360 notional expenses making a total of 9,584.
In what follows, direct expenses, notional expenses and donations are added to give one sum. The number of votes is also given so that the cost per vote (in the third column) can also be seen. I was scribbling numbers at speed, so any mistakes are my own, and if I receive any information about a mistake I will happily correct the figures.
Reform's figures with all kinds of apportionments (for instance where more than one face appears on a poster) are something of a nightmare, and all I have from Sam Mezec was "off the top of my head something like £800 below the limit."
The limit was £9,633.53 based on a fixed amount plus the number of voters.
It will be seen that on the whole, those who spent more got better results than those that did not. This did not directly affect placement within the cohort of who was elected, but it seems to have affected whether one was elected or not. The only outlier, provided I took the details correctly, was Tracy Valois.
Because I had limited time, and was scribbling madly, there may be errors in what follows. Each expense form is made from direct expenses, and notional expenses and donations. Notional expenses are when someone supplies services or work at below the market rate, or even at no cost, so that a notional cost of what they would be is placed on the form. This is to ensure a level playing field.
For example, Kristina Moore had £8,224.54 direct expenses plus £1,360 notional expenses making a total of 9,584.
In what follows, direct expenses, notional expenses and donations are added to give one sum. The number of votes is also given so that the cost per vote (in the third column) can also be seen. I was scribbling numbers at speed, so any mistakes are my own, and if I receive any information about a mistake I will happily correct the figures.
Reform's figures with all kinds of apportionments (for instance where more than one face appears on a poster) are something of a nightmare, and all I have from Sam Mezec was "off the top of my head something like £800 below the limit."
The limit was £9,633.53 based on a fixed amount plus the number of voters.
It will be seen that on the whole, those who spent more got better results than those that did not. This did not directly affect placement within the cohort of who was elected, but it seems to have affected whether one was elected or not. The only outlier, provided I took the details correctly, was Tracy Valois.
| Valois, Tracey | 15,518 | £2,413.45 | £0.16 |
| Moore, Kristina | 15,292 | £9,584.54 | £0.63 |
| Le Fondre, John | 14,214 | £9,623.41 | £0.68 |
| Farnham, Lyndon | 12,417 | £7,840.49 | £0.63 |
| Pallett, Steve | 12,114 | £8,525.10 | £0.70 |
| Gorst, Ian | 12,068 | £8,501.14 | £0.70 |
| Ferguson, Sarah | 11,297 | £6,804.43 | £0.60 |
| Mezec, Sam | 11,007 | £8,833.53 | £0.80 |
| Scott, Moz | 10,884 | £2,356.65 | £0.22 |
| Lewis, Anthony | 10,709 | £4,261.00 | £0.40 |
| Bree, Simon | 10,529 | £2,406.41 | £0.23 |
| Baudains, Gerard | 6,341 | £644.85 | £0.10 |
| Troy, Gordon | 4,695 | £2,037.53 | £0.43 |
| Luce, Frank | 2,279 | £2,409.75 | £1.06 |
| Risoli, Gino | 1,401 | £1,191.00 | £0.85 |
| Maguire, Phil | 976 | £50.32 | £0.05 |
| Ocean, Stevie | 953 | £808.79 | £0.85 |
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment