Reform’s 'phantom candidates' expose major loophole in our election law

"How can it be right that a regular voter has to prove they are who they say they are, yet the candidates they are voting for do not?”

Today we’re reporting a very curious story - so-called 'phantom candidates' who stood for election under the Reform UK banner.

Nigel Farage’s party fielded dozens of candidates in last Thursday’s general election that had no online presence, no contact details and blank website pages - leading to suspicions that some may not even exist.

Democracy for Sale has been working with Byline Times - which first reported these concerns - to dig into the story - and what we have found is yet another potentially massive loophole in British election law.

We also found that Reform’s ‘phantom candidates’ have potentially netted the party hundreds of thousands of pounds in extra public cash or ‘short money’ and hiked the amount the party could spend during the general election campaign.?

While paper candidates - who stand little chance of winning and therefore don’t campaign - are not uncommon in UK politics, it is rare for almost no information to be available about candidates online.?

Parliamentary candidates are not required to show identification when applying to stand for election. But, under changes introduced by Boris Johnson‘s Government, voters are required to do so at the ballot box – raising concerns that the rules are stricter for voters than they are for parties.

A bizarre loophole in electoral law means that even if a candidate doesn't exist, officials must accept their nomination "at face value", and are barred from investigating anything suspicious.?(David Allen Green’s excellent blog touches on this.)

Several high-profile democracy campaigners told us that urgent investigation is needed into the allegations of potential ‘fake’ candidates being put up, and demanded clarity from both Reform and regulators.?

Former Labour minister Dame Margaret Hodge said: "How can it be right that a regular voter has to prove they are who they say they are, yet the candidates they are voting for do not??

“This is a potential scandal, at a time when trust in our democracy is at an all time low. So the fact that the Electoral Commission does not even have the proper powers to investigate is unfathomable."

The controversy could have major financial implications. Political parties receive ￡42.82 in 'short money' for every 200 votes gained per candidate. Standing more candidates therefore puts parties at a financial advantage, though they must also recoup the ￡500 deposit to run (not payable if the candidate receives more than 5% of the vote).??

Spending limits also increase for parties based on their number of candidates. Parties are entitled to spend ￡11,390 per candidate standing, plus 8-12p per registered parliamentary elector, depending on the type of constituency. This equates to around ￡20,000 in local spending permitted per seat.?

But national spending limits are also set based on the number of candidates a party puts up. For every candidate a party puts forward, parties can spend an extra ￡54,000 nationally (this material is not allowed to mention local candidates or areas).??

The Guardian identified that at least one Reform candidate suspected of being fake, in part because his official election photo looked AI-generated, is a real person. Nevertheless, there have been concerns raised about other candidates.

At least one Byline Times reader is considering a police complaint over a Reform candidate who she suspects may not exist. "There's no online presence for her, and the Reform website just has a blank page and generic email address," she told us.?

However the Electoral Commission admits it's powerless to investigate.?

A spokesperson for the elections body said: "If a false statement was provided on nomination papers, it would be for the police rather than the Commission to investigate." The Commission was stripped of powers to launch prosecutions by the Conservative Government.?

David Howarth, who served as an electoral commissioner between 2020 and 2018, said: “This is an aspect of election law over which the Electoral Commission has no jurisdiction. It falls to the ordinary criminal justice system - the police and the CPS - but the record of the police is patchy, to say the least.”

Howarth, a former Lib Dem MP, added that “jurisdiction over this kind of case [should] be transferred to the Electoral Commission and the Commission [should] be supplied with sufficient resources to carry out investigations.”

Jolyon Maugham KC, director of public interest legal campaigners Good Law Project, said: "This isn't just a story about troubling and potentially unlawful practice by the Reform Party. It could also have real-life consequences: if there is a ghost Reform candidate whose nomination might plausibly have affected who was elected there may need to be re-run in that seat."

Tom Brake, Director of democracy group Unlock Democracy, said that: “If it looks as though the law was broken, police investigations must follow and prosecution by the CPS.?

“And if the police and the CPS have no appetite for pursuing any case, it might be time to look again at the Electoral Commission's prosecution powers."

Reform UK was contacted for comment. Meanwhile a Reform UK source told The Guardian: “All our candidates are categorically real. Given the rush, a few are just paper candidates and didn’t campaign. Some people began as paper candidates but then did campaign, and one of these – James McMurdock in South Basildon and East Thurrock – ended up winning his seat.”

An Electoral Commission spokesperson said: “We're aware of the claims. If a false statement was provided on nomination papers, it would be for the police rather than the Commission to investigate.

“For a candidate to be qualified to stand as an MP, they must meet the qualification criteria.

“The criteria includes being over 18 and a British, Irish or Commonwealth citizen. A candidate must also not be disqualified. A candidate must ensure they meet these criteria and declare as such on the nomination form.”

This story was jointly published with Byline Times.

If you don’t already, upgrade to a paid subscription to support Democracy for Sale’s work.

Upgrade to Paid