Limit spending
Existing limits on spending at elections
At general elections, there is an existing limit on what parties can spend on campaigning based on an allowance of £30,000 per constituency contested. This results in a ceiling of almost £19 million for the three main parties, depending on the number of seats contested (the three main parties tend not to contest all the seats in Northern Ireland).
In the 2005 general election their respective expenditure was £17.85 million for the Conservative Party, £17.94 million for the Labour Party, and £4.32 million for the Liberal Democrats.
Should the spending limit be even lower?
Reducing the ceiling further may help close the gap between income and expenditure. It might also encourage more local campaigning and greater engagement of voters in the communities in which they live. It would respond to the perception that parties spend far too much on campaigning and could force parties to spend with a clearer eye to value for money in what they do to persuade the voter.
However, it has been put to me that lowering the ceiling further implies that campaigning is somehow a bad thing, ignoring the part it plays in informing the electorate. Running a professional campaign which meets modern communications expectations and complies with the rules is expensive.
How much should any spending limit be?
If the expenditure limits are decreased there are two consequential decisions. First we need to agree the new ceiling some have suggested £15 million, others £10 million or £12 million.
How should limits on election expenditure work?
Second, a view needs to be taken on the period over which campaigning expenditure needs to be capped. There are many more elections than ten years ago. The campaigning cycle extends well beyond the annual period currently set for a general election. Considerable sums are spent in marginal seats outside the controlled period.
The logic of this pattern might be to cap national and local campaign expenditure all the time. The question is whether this is proportionate and whether parties, especially locally, can manage the practical demands of greater accountability; and whether the cost of compliance on small parties is too great.
Page last updated: 19 October 2006