There’s one thing that I have haven’t seen mentioned in any of the discussion of the current Labour party loans scandal.
The Labour party “borrowed” nearly £14 million from various people in order to finance last year’s election campaign. That means that they spent at least £14 million on the campaign.
Am I being naive? Or does anyone else think that’s an obscene amount to spend on an election campaign? Perhaps that’s an area that needs some more legislation.
I also don’t get how it’s a loan. How are they going to pay it back? In Australia, where parties get electoral funding according to the number of votes they receive, I can see the point of a loan. That doesn’t happen here.Part of the reason they spent so much is that political parties pay top money for advertising space. Nobody will give them discounts for long-term deals, because they don’t advertise long-term, and suddenly everyone starts paying the price printed on the rate card when an election is coming up.
Well, it’s less than a pound for each voter, and most marketers think that you have to send repeated messages to a person in order for that message to sink in. Some studies think that a frequency of 4 times is sufficient, others put it at 10, etc. So when you consider that sort of advertising spend, coupled with direct amrketing efforts etc., it’s probably not too bad.
Don’t forget the push polling. That costs real money! In the current council elections, we’re getting >1 call a night. Fuckers.
that’s an area that needs some more legislation.Always more laws huh? :-)Gang together with other members of your party and let your leadership know that you are uncomfortable with that level of spending.
Actually no. I was wrong there. There already is a law limiting parties to spending £20 million on an election campaign. So it’s not more laws, just a change to an existing one.And, yes, I think that this should be controlled with legislation. I don’t want elections to be influenced by the fact that one party has deeper pockets than another.It’s clear to me that without limits we’d just get into a arms race with each party trying to outspend the others. That situation is bad for everyone, so we need to prevent it.
Well firstly I don’t have a party. I haven’t been a member of a political party for several years. None of them really represent my views and my vote is always a compromise.And secondly, I don’t think this is a just matter for party members. Surely the way that election campaigns are run should be of concern to everyone, not just party members.
Firstly I apologise for assuming your membership to that party. Like yourself I don’t have a party that reflects fully my views either and every vote is a comprimise.And, yes, I think that this should be controlled with legislation. I don’t want elections to be influenced by the fact that one party has deeper pockets than another.It’s clear to me that without limits we’d just get into a arms race with each party trying to outspend the others. That situation is bad for everyone, so we need to prevent it.This is always the case tho unless you truely believe in a two or three party system as the limit of 20 million is so obscenely high that none of the other parties can hope to compete.If you are going to insist on legal limits the American system is slightly fairer. They limit the donation per individual or company to $2000 per phase of campaign (and there are two phases).I don’t agree with that either but from your point of view it at least makes more sense.