|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 20, 2023 17:03:52 GMT
Election expenses limits raised by The Representation of the People (Variation of Election Expenses, Expenditure Limits and Donation etc. Thresholds) Order 2023 made today. Constituency spending limits will be £11,390 + 12p per elector (county constituency) or 8p per elector (borough/burgh constituency). Byelection spending limit goes up to £180,050. Long campaign spending (which now only applies if the dissolution is 55 months after Parliament was summoned - June 2024) is £40,220 + 12p per elector (county constituency) or 8p per elector (borough/burgh constituency). National campaign spending limits are also increased by 80%. Council ward spending limits go to £960 + 8p per elector. |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Nov 20, 2023 20:24:29 GMT
£180,050? It is bad enough that the by-election spending limit was as high £100,000. It should only have been half that!
And the ~£15,000 limit per constituency in terms of short campaign spending was quite enough!
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 20, 2023 20:37:20 GMT
The logic and ability to police the 'long campaign' limit has basically gone because of the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 20, 2023 22:29:39 GMT
£180,050? It is bad enough that the by-election spending limit was as high £100,000. It should only have been half that! And the ~£15,000 limit per constituency in terms of short campaign spending was quite enough! Presumably the increase from £100,000 to £180,050 is merely to align it with inflation since the figure of £100,000 was decided in the first place. Reducing it to half that, or any other different figure, would be a political decision rather than an administrative adjustment, and would probably require primary legislation rather than routine secondary stuff like this. |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,762 
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Nov 20, 2023 23:36:42 GMT
£180,050? It is bad enough that the by-election spending limit was as high £100,000. It should only have been half that! And the ~£15,000 limit per constituency in terms of short campaign spending was quite enough! Presumably the increase from £100,000 to £180,050 is merely to align it with inflation since the figure of £100,000 was decided in the first place. . That's the problem with not doing this stuff annually. It means you get years and years of "normal" increases all smashed into one huge increase. cf North Yorkshire councillor allowances going up 50%...... to exactly what 2010's allowances are in today's money. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 21, 2023 0:14:14 GMT
Presumably the increase from £100,000 to £180,050 is merely to align it with inflation since the figure of £100,000 was decided in the first place. . That's the problem with not doing this stuff annually. It means you get years and years of "normal" increases all smashed into one huge increase. cf North Yorkshire councillor allowances going up 50%...... to exactly what 2010's allowances are in today's money. Similarly the £500 deposit, which should have been index-linked (perhaps rounded to the nearest £20 each time) after in was set in 1986. The “problem” which it sought to “solve” has returned because the deterrent effect has been eroded by inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 21, 2023 7:54:59 GMT
The logic and ability to police the 'long campaign' limit has basically gone because of the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Didn't the long campaign concept come in before then? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 21, 2023 8:13:15 GMT
The logic and ability to police the 'long campaign' limit has basically gone because of the repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act. Didn't the long campaign concept come in before then? My recollection is that it existed for General Elections in the fifth year of a Parliament, and was in force for the 2010 GE. I'm less clear about whether that rule was reinstated with the repeal of the FTPA. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Nov 21, 2023 8:53:34 GMT
I recall it existed in 2015 but we knew the election date for that one yonks in advance so didn't have to be constantly adding & removing things from the work sheet.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Nov 21, 2023 8:59:13 GMT
Didn't the long campaign concept come in before then? My recollection is that it existed for General Elections in the fifth year of a Parliament, and was in force for the 2010 GE. I'm less clear about whether that rule was reinstated with the repeal of the FTPA. My memory says that it did exist as a rule, but in practice it could not be enforced properly because in real life people don’t know in advance when the general election is going to be, so they don’t know what period of time is covered by the rule. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,894
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 21, 2023 12:09:43 GMT
£180,050? It is bad enough that the by-election spending limit was as high £100,000. It should only have been half that! And the ~£15,000 limit per constituency in terms of short campaign spending was quite enough! I am by nature opposed to any limits at all. The existing limits of only a few pence per elector are quite absurdly low and I would as an interim measure increase to £5 per elector for everything as a motion towards much higher and then none at all and no monitoring staff employed. It is a silly rule serving no possible purpose. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Nov 21, 2023 12:27:35 GMT
£180,050? It is bad enough that the by-election spending limit was as high £100,000. It should only have been half that! And the ~£15,000 limit per constituency in terms of short campaign spending was quite enough! I am by nature opposed to any limits at all. The existing limits of only a few pence per elector are quite absurdly low and I would as an interim measure increase to £5 per elector for everything as a motion towards much higher and then none at all and no monitoring staff employed. It is a silly rule serving no possible purpose. I agree that the limits are too low but I disagree with getting rid of them altogether. You don't want wealthy candidates or parties throwing oceans of cash at target seats but the present limits are so low that they create a problem for campaigns that so far as I can see have done nothing excessive or extravagant but merely put resources into conventional and legitimate campaigning methods to try to win a seat.
Maybe about £20,000 + 15p per elector + £10 per sq km up to some cap to avoid allowing gigantic spending in the Scottish Highlands.
This to apply equally to BCs and CCs; but keep the distinction, meaningless though it would then be, for the gratification of rheumy-eyed nostalgiacs such as myself.
And put the deposit up to £1500 or £2000 and require 10% of the vote to get it back.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,904
Member is Online
|
Post by The Bishop on Nov 21, 2023 13:38:08 GMT
Put the deposit up yes, but 5% is about right.
Very few "frivolous" candidates ever reach it, and a 10% threshold would only deter legitimate serious parties from giving us more choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Nov 21, 2023 13:45:05 GMT
I used to be so wedded and stuck to £500/5%. Can't deny that £500 being the case for 40-odd years doesn't quite make sense with everything else increasing either in cost or allowance. I like the islington idea of also bringing km² into candidate spending. From my "previous life", I know that some local parties really struggle to meet the deposit. Really struggle. I remember the same names being mentioned as "good" for donations and helping hands, so I'm aware of the consequences of raising the deposit. I'm thinking maybe £1,250 with a 7.25% threshold? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,894
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 21, 2023 14:01:13 GMT
I am by nature opposed to any limits at all. The existing limits of only a few pence per elector are quite absurdly low and I would as an interim measure increase to £5 per elector for everything as a motion towards much higher and then none at all and no monitoring staff employed. It is a silly rule serving no possible purpose. I agree that the limits are too low but I disagree with getting rid of them altogether. You don't want wealthy candidates or parties throwing oceans of cash at target seats but the present limits are so low that they create a problem for campaigns that so far as I can see have done nothing excessive or extravagant but merely put resources into conventional and legitimate campaigning methods to try to win a seat.
Maybe about £20,000 + 15p per elector + £10 per sq km up to some cap to avoid allowing gigantic spending in the Scottish Highlands.
This to apply equally to BCs and CCs; but keep the distinction, meaningless though it would then be, for the gratification of rheumy-eyed nostalgiacs such as myself.
And put the deposit up to £1500 or £2000 and require 10% of the vote to get it back.
I think that to be a good post. Of course I understand the reasons for limits but wonder if it would pose much of a problem most of the time? I don't think people are much 'bought' by material through the letterbox or hoardings. Heavy TV and internet might achieve American-style shift I suppose? I will compromise on a significant uplift and annual automatic revision upwards, coupled with index-linked significantly higher deposits with claw-back on achieving 10% of the vote. And may I add how much I enjoyed our all too brief chat and meeting you. |
|
nodealbrexiteer
Forum Regular
non aligned favour no deal brexit!
Posts: 4,449
|
Post by nodealbrexiteer on Nov 21, 2023 14:51:04 GMT
Put the deposit up yes, but 5% is about right. Very few "frivolous" candidates ever reach it, and a 10% threshold would only deter legitimate serious parties from giving us more choice. How do you define a 'legitimate serious party'?  Also sounds like an advert for PR lol |
|
johng
Labour
Posts: 4,849
|
Post by johng on Nov 21, 2023 15:18:19 GMT
Put the deposit up yes, but 5% is about right. Very few "frivolous" candidates ever reach it, and a 10% threshold would only deter legitimate serious parties from giving us more choice.
I've always thought a tapered system made more sense than the arbitrary 5%.
A good amount would be £1000.
£10 of the deposit would get returned for each 0.1% received in the poll meaning it's fully returned at 10%/ £500 at 5% etc. Perhaps with a minimum of one or two percent minimum would make sense too.
It could be much worse though. India requires 16.7% to get the deposit back. In Japan, the deposit is over £16,000. I'd much rather keep our system than have one of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Nov 21, 2023 18:34:14 GMT
That's the problem with not doing this stuff annually. It means you get years and years of "normal" increases all smashed into one huge increase. cf North Yorkshire councillor allowances going up 50%...... to exactly what 2010's allowances are in today's money. Similarly the £500 deposit, which should have been index-linked (perhaps rounded to the nearest £20 each time) after in was set in 1986. The “problem” which it sought to “solve” has returned because the deterrent effect has been eroded by inflation.
It sought to solve a problem that didn't need solving, leave it be if we have to have one, but otherwise get rid of it completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 21, 2023 18:40:15 GMT
The problem of excessive frivolous candidatures has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.
|
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Nov 21, 2023 18:45:03 GMT
The problem of excessive frivolous candidatures has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. Sounds like a line from a Gilbert and Sullivan opera. |
|
