M.I.5¾ wrote:
> "Gaz" wrote in message
> news:64secvF2bt42nU1@mid.individual.net...
>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>> "Gaz" wrote in message
>>> news:64s4k1F2cifpcU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> M.I.5¾ wrote:
>>>>> "Andy" wrote in message
>>>>> news:cdba9186-7ca5-42af-b6d0-4720c4b9346e@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Living in the UK, I'm somewhat envious of the "primaries"
>>>>>> happening in the US. I think this is a great idea, and it's
>>>>>> thrown up plenty of interesting debates.
>>>>>> How could we bring some of the benefits of this approach to the
>>>>>> parliamentary system used in the UK? I've had a little think
>>>>>> about this and come up with the idea of "standardised" leadership
>>>>>> elections. Firstly , the parties MPs would choose a candidate.
>>>>>> Secondly, the parties other elected officials, such as
>>>>>> councillors, assembly members and MEPs would get a choice, and
>>>>>> lastly the "rank and file" party activists. This would produce
>>>>>> three able candidates, of which the general public would have
>>>>>> the chance to vote on. An additional advantage of such an
>>>>>> arrangement would be the leadership hopefuls would have to pitch
>>>>>> their case to voters of other parties. Should the party
>>>>>> concerned have no MPs, then their leader could be appointed to
>>>>>> parliament as a non-voting member. Would the commons not benefit
>>>>>> from a speaker for the Greens or UKIP, who have no MPs but
>>>>>> considerable public support.
>>>>>
>>>>> Those primaries (and all that goes with them) cost a small fortune
>>>>> to anyone who wishes to run in them. This ensures that only those
>>>>> with $$$ can afford to be elected in the US. It also ensures that
>>>>> the next presidential race starts almost as soon as the last one
>>>>> finishes. Here in Britian we have laws that prevent this
>>>>> situation because the money and time that can be spent on an
>>>>> election campaign is strictly limited. And a good job as well.
>>>>
>>>> They cost about £800 over here, that included advertising and the
>>>> rental of the hall.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The maximum amount that can be spent by a candidate in a general
>>> election is currently £7150 plus 7p per voter in a county
>>> constituency or £7150 plus 5p per voter in a borough constituency.
>>> (The Representation of the People (Variation of Limits of
>>> Candidates' Election Expenses) Order 2005)
>>
>> But, that amount applies only to candidates, and only within a small
>> window from when the election is called. It does not include
>> spending by the parties on national campaigns, which can easily get
>> into tens of millions.
>>
>
> No, they are limited as well.
Advertising that doesnt mention a candidate is not limited in any way.
Along with the number of party political
> broadcasts that are available and the extent of free postage for
> election communications.
Free postage allows the candidate to get out one free leaflet posted. A
campaign could have dozens of leaflets.
However, an advertising campaign that does
> not specifically touch on any election and merely advertises the
> political party falls outside of the scope, though the line is a very
> fine one.
It is not fine at all, it is quite clearly outside.
Gaz
|