Yes, certainly, because these days one has to use a new definition for everything, just like we had to do with ‘meritocracy’, ‘transparency’ etc.

There are definitions and then there are definitions according to the PL.

Only when hell freezes over.

Do you seriously think that these friends spend the money out of love or is the money more likely spent as an investment in a candidate to be translated into favours once the candidate is elected?

This is the first step in the corruption of candidates.

The problem is not whether a candidate can exert control over his friends as to how they choose to spend their money but rather whether that candidate is willing to do so.

It doesn’t seem to me to be an equal or equivalent act, but perhaps I’m missing something?

Maybe Inspector Gadget can deliver a dossier to the Police HQ about this case?

The declaration is a farce. The vast proportion of the money spent is at the expense of the “Friends of (insert name of candidate)”, and which candidate can exert control over his friends as to how they choose to spend their money?

The instructions by the Electoral Commission were very clear: that is that expenses declarations had to be sworn in front of a magistrate. Why and how the labour candidates were allowed to get away with this is mysterious.