The issue of the £2.4 million is being raised again by The Times, but yet again, the clowns who call themselves jounralists are putting 2 and 2 together and making 29 !
Keeping clear of the issue of should the money be repaid or not, which has been discussed previously, it is The Times obsession with claiming the Lib Dem party members are liable for the debt that devalues their article.
They keep repeating the phrase "party members will be liable" or "each party member would share the debt". The problem for the journalists, and something they cannot explain is why this is the case ?
Surely, just like the Tory Party or Labour Party (who both have massive debts which are not paid by their members) the Lib Dems could arrange temporary loans from individuals or financial institutions ? Just because the Lib Dems have made no provision at present, it does not mean they can't !
The truth of the matter is, I would imagine, that the two Times journalists are Lib Dem haters who want to try and create panic amongst the Liberal Democrat membership so they can write another story about falling membership numbers in the party.
If they have ANY evidence why the Lib Dem members would be liable for the £2.4million when Labour and Conservative members are not liable for their own party's debt, let them print it. otherwise, stick to the facts.