How much the Lib Dems spent fighting the Welsh Assembly elections

The Electoral Commission has today published figures showing how much each of the political parties spent contesting May 2007’s Welsh Assembly elections.

In total the Lib Dems spent £407,407 – £239,799 was spent by the party, with a further £167,608 incurred by candidates. This was £33,791 less than the Tories’ total (£441,198) and £10,211 less than Paid Cymru (£417,618).

(Labour figures are not yet available, as the party’s total spending exceeded £250,000, which means they have until 2nd November to file their expenses.)

In 2003, the Welsh Lib Dems spent £372,695, attracting a total of 228,353 votes (combining the constituencies and regions) – which means the party’s total spending per vote was £1.63 per vote.

In 2007, the Welsh Lib Dems’ spending of £407,407 attracted a total 258,950 votes (+13%), or £1.57 per vote.

In both elections we won six seats, of course – but at least the party achieved greater value-for-money this time…

Read more by .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/1253 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

12 Comments

  • Plaid had terriffic spending power in this election. It came down to big donations from non-welsh domiciles and unsurprisingly led to Plaid making an overnight decision to drop their calls for Labour only to spend “Welsh Money” in May.

    Hypocrisy anyone?

  • Thanks for the number-crunching, Stephen. Are you easily able to give us the same “spend per vote” for the other parties?

    It does seem a lot, doesn’t it? Over £1 per vote.

  • Chris Keating 1st Sep '07 - 10:06am

    I’m sure the Electoral Commission make sure they read through all posts on political blogs, and that they will give your thoughts appropiate consideration.

  • I agree with Chris Paul about the laxity of the regulations governing elections, but it was his party which relaxed the rules in order to give themselves the financial space for their direct mail campaigns, telephone banks, and so on. The pre-Blair regulations served British politics well in my view. Obviously spending limits need to be reviewed on a regular basis to take into account changes in campaigning costs – and perhaps changes in campaigning techniques – but to allow virtually unlimited spending in constituencies outside election periods simply enables constituencies to be ‘bought’ by those with deep pockets. I won’t name any because that might be libellous, but I’m sure we all know of examples.

  • Thanks Chris, I do know something about libel laws and as I’d just suggested that some constituencies were ‘bought’ at the last election that is an assertion which I would not be able to prove. Sure, there are examples of over-spending at elections, although this is far less frequent than it used to be because the limits are so much higher. It is therefore my contention that it is the pre-election spending that is corrupting British politics because of the vast amounts of money that need to be raised to pump into the seats that will decide the outcome of a general election. Where overspending happens during an election campaign it is not in the interests of any of the parties to report it to or pursue it with the Electoral Commission because it is essentially a case of Mutually Assured Destruction – all parties have things to hide so there is an unspoken agreement not to pursue this sort of case. As far as I recall the Newark case was brought by rogue elements within the Labour Party.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarDave Raval 25th May - 12:05pm
    Lots of interesting posts on this thread – thanks everyone and keep it up. I thought I’d wait a while before coming back in to...
  • User AvatarMartin Elengorn 25th May - 12:03pm
    There is little sign that economic liberalism is capable of addressing climate change issues. A singular lack of reference to these in the debate.
  • User AvatarJohn Roffey 25th May - 11:49am
    Jock Coats 25th May '15 - 10:51am "I don’t believe in “state co-operatives”. As a way of the state getting rid of its worst intrusions...
  • User Avatarmalc 25th May - 11:39am
    It might not be brief, but his views are shared by many. Can anyone really see Norman Lamb - decent man that he is -...
  • User AvatarCaron Lindsay 25th May - 11:38am
    Tony, this is a joint initiative - it came out as a joint press release.
  • User AvatarAlex Dingwall 25th May - 11:32am
    Michael i do not believe it is unfair to say Alistair lied because that is beyond doubt. You say that "Alistair did not at first...
Mon 25th May 2015
12:05
Tue 26th May 2015
Wed 27th May 2015
Thu 28th May 2015
Fri 29th May 2015
19:30
Sat 30th May 2015
Sun 31st May 2015
Mon 1st Jun 2015
Wed 3rd Jun 2015
Thu 4th Jun 2015
Sat 6th Jun 2015
Wed 10th Jun 2015
Thu 11th Jun 2015
19:00
Fri 12th Jun 2015
Sat 13th Jun 2015
Wed 17th Jun 2015
Thu 18th Jun 2015
Sat 20th Jun 2015
Sun 21st Jun 2015