At the 2024 general election, Labour made comfortable gains in Morecambe and Lunesdale, the constituency that runs from the Lancashire seaside to the edge of the Pennine Hills. The new MP, Lizzi Collinge, beat her Conservative opponent David Morris, who had held the seat since 2010, by almost 6,000 votes. But it can now be revealed that she is facing questions about her campaign funding and expenditure, from both the Tories and the police.

Speaking on her behalf, a Labour Party spokesperson insists Collinge has done nothing wrong, and that she has “declared everything” in line with the strict, complex rules which govern British elections. A dossier of evidence, seen by UnHerd, which the Conservatives have submitted to the Lancashire constabulary, claims otherwise.

Its starting point is a £15,000 donation Collinge received via the national party from the Autoglass plutocrat Gary Lubner, who before the 2024 election gave Labour a total of £4.5 million. Around 60 Labour candidates received similar sums to Collinge; after they were elected, most stated in the Commons register of interests that the cash had helped to fund their general election campaigns. Collinge was an exception, however. She said she spent Lubner’s money on “the cost of a political organiser, social media advertising, direct mail costs, [and] office costs”.

This meant she could not be accused of exceeding the rigid spending ceiling decreed by the Electoral Commission, which for those standing in Morecambe last year was £20,384.

As well as their entry in the Commons register, in which new MPs must list every donation made for any purpose during the previous year, parliamentarians must also submit an electoral “return”, which breaks down their campaign spending and any money they have received. Collinge’s return says she got and spent a total close to her ceiling: £18,447. This, her office told me, didn’t include any of the money from Lubner, because she had spent it all by the end of April. The return, they said, only has to cover expenditure made during the official campaign period, which last year began on 30 May.

However, an electoral law expert told me there is a twist. If, for example, a candidate were to spend money on printing leaflets before the official campaign started but distributed them during it, this would count as election spending, and would therefore have to be declared in the return. Failing to do so would be a criminal offence, as would exceeding the Electoral Commission ceiling.

Meanwhile, the Tory dossier cites evidence of apparent anomalies. For example, the return sets out the cost of nine separate pieces of campaign literature, such as “targeted letters” to voters and two “election addresses”. The Morecambe Tories have copies of all these items. However, they have also collected a further eight leaflets and other printed documents sent to voters which do not appear in the return. They include full-colour leaflets which cannot have been cheap, with titles such as A Brighter Future for Morecambe and Lunesdale and Lizzi Collinge — Your Candidate.

Of course, these could have been distributed before the official campaign period. However, the evidence they were not comes from Collinge’s Facebook page, which includes numerous posts featuring the leaflets and photos of her team delivering them — dating from the month of June, in the run-up to the poll. I asked both Collinge’s office and the national Labour HQ why these leaflets were not declared in her return, citing their titles and the dates of her posts. They refused to comment.

The return contains a further apparent anomaly. Although it seems to omit details of spending that relate to the official campaign period, it includes five items that predated it, despite the reason Collinge’s office gives for excluding Lubner’s donation from her return being that she had spent it all before this period began.

Earlier this month, the police told the Tories and Collinge they had decided to take no further action. The Conservatives’ lawyers protested, submitting further evidence. The police confirmed to me that, as a result, they are conducting a “review” of the case to determine whether they need to make further inquiries. Collinge’s office declined to discuss this review when questioned about it. A Labour HQ spokesperson claimed in response: “The police have been clear that no offences have been committed by Lizzi Collinge and they will be taking no further action.”

But as yet, it seems, they haven’t been clear at all. Shadow Local Government Secretary Kevin Hollinrake told me that he believed “the dossier of evidence on Morecambe and Lunesdale is sufficiently concerning that the police should fully investigate these claims as a matter of urgency.” If they concluded there was a case to answer, the usual deadline for prosecutions under electoral law, one year after polling day, should, he said, be extended: “Elections are only free and fair if there is a level playing field and enforcement of the rules.”

Morecambe is classic red-wall territory, and its economy is far from thriving. Reform UK came third there last year, but having to fight a by-election is not a prospect Labour would relish. The party will hope that, despite the apparent anomalies, the police agree Collinge did indeed declare everything in accordance with the rules.

---

David Rose is UnHerd‘s Investigations Editor.

DavidRoseUK

---