We should ;d have more information clearly available on Consituency spending.

The result of the The EU  referendum has unfortunate killed off reporting on the claims  that d that the Conservatives have miscalculated spending during their 2015 general election campaign.

 The Electoral Commission issues clear guidelines on spending. These state that:

There are two types of spending by or on behalf of parties at elections. These are:

Party campaign spending on campaigning to promote the party and its policies generally. For example, national newspaper adverts for the party, or leaflets explaining party policy. It also includes spending on promoting candidates at elections where the party nominates a list of candidates for a region, instead of individual candidates for local areas.

Candidate spending on campaigning to promote a particular candidate or candidates in their local area. For example, leaflets or websites that focus on one or more candidates and their views.

Different rules apply to the two types of spending.

It would still be interesting to see the same information that appears on the Wikipedia coverage of the constituency results of our seats  as they do with Canadian elections

Where  the expenses of the Parties contesting are eventually included in the result

Take the result for Sydney—Victoria i a federal electoral district in Nova Scotia, Canada, that has been represented in the House of Commons of Canada since 1997.

[hide]Canadian federal election, 2011
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	∆%	Expenditures
	Liberal	Mark Eyking	14,788	39.91	-9.49	$67,454.53
	Conservative	Cecil Clarke	14,023	37.85	+17.23	$77,334.98
	New Democratic	Kathy MacLeod	7,049	19.02	-5.42	$17,238.77
	Green	Chris Milburn	1,191	3.21	-2.33	$0.00
Total valid votes/Expense limit			37,051	100.0		$80,666.28
Total rejected, unmarked and declined ballots			279	0.75	+0.03
Turnout			37,330	61.48	+4.07
Eligible voters			60,719
	Liberal hold		Swing		-13.36
Sources:[6][7]

Its a bit messy as I couldn't fit it all in but scroll across for the expenses for this seat.

It probably takes awhile before the details of the expenditure for the  last Election are displayed whee there was a huge swing to the Liberals

Canadian politics are quite volatile

[hide]Canadian federal election, 2015
Party		Candidate	Votes	%	∆%	Expenditures
	Liberal	Mark Eyking	29,995	73.20	+33.29	–
	New Democratic	Monika Dutt	5,351	13.06	–5.97	–
	Conservative	John Douglas Chiasson	4,360	10.64	–27.21	–
	Green	Adrianna MacKinnon	1,026	2.50	–0.71	–
	Libertarian	Wayne James Hiscock	242	0.59	–	–
Total valid votes/Expense limit			40,974	100.00		$194,502.63
Total rejected ballots			236	0.57
Turnout			41,210	68.96
Eligible voters			59,761
	Liberal hold		Swing		+19.63
Source: Elections Canada[4][5]

There seems to be over a doubling of the expenses limit for this riding do the figuers for 2015 

Before the campaign, there were no limits to what a political party, candidate, or third party (corporations, unions, special interest groups, etc.) can spend: spending rules are only in force after the writs have been dropped and the campaign has begun. Because the election period is set longer than the standard 37-day election period, spending limits are increased in proportion to the length of the period.^[73]

Party spending limits and actual spending, 2015 vs 2011

Type	Spending limits		2015						2011[74]
	2015[75]	2011	Conservative		NDP		Liberal		Conservative		NDP		Liberal
			Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%	Amount	%
Political party	$54,475,840[76]	$21,025,793							$19,519,995	93%	$20,372,231	97%	$19,507,746	93%
Party candidates	$73,611,590[77]	$28,244,499							$19,655,136	70%	$7,117,962	25%	$14,517,363	41%
Total	$128,087,430	$49,270,292							$39,175,131	80%	$27,490,193	56%	$34,025,109	69%
Candidates spending > 75% of limit									173		44		91
Candidates spending > 50% of limit									228		70		169

Reimbursements for political parties and candidates[edit]

So it will be interesting  o see how much difference this made in each constituency. The Information is available but not so accessible.

It would be certainly helpful if Wikipedia provided us with the same information on a consistency basis here.