|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jan 12, 2017 16:30:24 GMT
By-elections don't have the support of national campaigns or the economies of scale or even shared costs that can be split across both campaigns. It used to be an open secret that most parties freely spent far more than the old limits and so the £100,000 limit was introduced to recognise reality and bring some control. But why have any limit? Because every so often some like Goldsmith turns up with £300m in the bank and a vendetta against the government. |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679 
|
Post by Jack on Jan 12, 2017 16:31:41 GMT
By-elections don't have the support of national campaigns or the economies of scale or even shared costs that can be split across both campaigns. It used to be an open secret that most parties freely spent far more than the old limits and so the £100,000 limit was introduced to recognise reality and bring some control. But why have any limit? Fairness? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 12, 2017 16:31:56 GMT
By-elections don't have the support of national campaigns or the economies of scale or even shared costs that can be split across both campaigns. It used to be an open secret that most parties freely spent far more than the old limits and so the £100,000 limit was introduced to recognise reality and bring some control. But why have any limit? Because otherwise people/parties with the means could literally "buy" elections? |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 12, 2017 16:33:47 GMT
Because every so often some like Goldsmith turns up with £300m in the bank and a vendetta against the government. And that spend got him no seats and not much influence. What was the unfairness or harm and what is your cogent reason for stopping him. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jan 12, 2017 16:37:58 GMT
Because every so often some like Goldsmith turns up with £300m in the bank and a vendetta against the government. And that spend got him no seats and not much influence. What was the unfairness or harm and what is your cogent reason for stopping him. If the limit didn't exist I'll wager that he would have spent more than £95k. |
|
peterl
Green
Congratulations President Trump
Posts: 8,473
|
Post by peterl on Jan 12, 2017 16:40:05 GMT
Limits are there for a reason, to level the playing field somewhat, and there is no reason to have 3 times the normal limit at a by election.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 12, 2017 16:46:22 GMT
Because otherwise people/parties with the means could literally "buy" elections? No they couldn't 'literally' buy them as there is no seller of elections. 'Buy' it off whom? 20K gullible citizens who would have voted in a completely different manner had it not been for a staggering spend on brilliant literature that converted them all to the other side? You really believe that? We all hanker for wonderful leaflets and read them through carefully, considering all the material very carefully. And then those thousands who have absolutely no opinion at all and don't vote unless they are canvassed more than once and conveyed to the poll by car? And those who are dead to any party unless it provides a CD/DVD/VHS to their door with an all-singing, all-dancing wonderfully directed one hour show to convince them? Do I believe it would be possible to outspend an opponent in an ultra marginal and make enough difference to win it on that spend? Yes, very occasionally that is a possibility in perhaps a few seats at each election. In most cases the defining decision maker is the previous 3-years of drip feed from all sources, coupled with which of the two potential PMs do I prefer, and which of the two majors do I dislike the less. The campaign spend does not affect much because one cannot spend on TV Adverts the one medium that would make a serious difference. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 12, 2017 16:50:31 GMT
And that spend got him no seats and not much influence. What was the unfairness or harm and what is your cogent reason for stopping him. If the limit didn't exist I'll wager that he would have spent more than £95k. And why not? And he would have still lost even with a spend in one seat of £2.5M |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Jan 12, 2017 16:51:45 GMT
Limits are there for a reason, to level the playing field someone, and there is no reason to have 3 times the normal limit at a by election. Yes there is. Look up-thread. |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jan 12, 2017 17:22:12 GMT
Limits are there for a reason, to level the playing field someone, and there is no reason to have 3 times the normal limit at a by election. Yes there is. Look up-thread. There is an argument for having a higher limit at a by-election, where there isn't the national election stuff to clue the electorate into the fact that the by-election is happening, or to inform them of what each party's platform is for this particular election. That doesn't therefore mean that the appropriate limit is three times the normal limit for a constituency. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Jan 12, 2017 18:06:21 GMT
We really need the by-election spending limit to be at the same limit as general elections i.e. approximately £30,000 per candidate. After all, given that by-elections generally occur by surprise, there is no need to spend £100,000 on a month-long campaign! Yet another ultra-peculiar use of the word "need". |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jan 12, 2017 18:17:06 GMT
Fairness? Fairness??!! Are you sure you're not still a Liberal Democrat?  |
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679
|
Post by Jack on Jan 12, 2017 18:29:01 GMT
Fairness? Fairness??!! Are you sure you're not still a Liberal Democrat? I'm not playing my new role very well. |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,135
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 12, 2017 22:27:13 GMT
Surprised we spent that much - quite expensive on a £s per vote ratio! The campaign actually cost you £20,500 including the lost deposit.  |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Jan 13, 2017 14:05:41 GMT
Fairness? Fairness??!! Are you sure you're not still a Liberal Democrat? I'm not playing my new role very well. We have never had a "re-ratter" on this forum (I'm not counting here going from a party to "non-aligned" and back again) Well, there's a first time for everything...... |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jan 13, 2017 20:20:44 GMT
Kris must have re-ratted at some point!
|
|
Jack
Reform Party
Posts: 8,679
|
Post by Jack on Jan 13, 2017 20:23:04 GMT
Kris must have re-ratted at some point! Several times, I'd imagine. |
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jan 13, 2017 20:24:55 GMT
Kris must have re-ratted at some point! Only once?  |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2018 11:08:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Apr 27, 2018 16:24:33 GMT
No. Couldn't be any further action other than a criminal prosecution of the Lib Dem candidate/agent, partly as the Parliament to which Olney was elected has been dissolved.
|
|
