Dear Nick Clegg…

Dear Deputy Prime Minister,

I read your speech from Thursday to the Committee on Standards in Public Life with interest. It is good to see the progress being made in many areas of political reform, including the commitment made in the speech that, “in the New Year we will produce draft legislation to complete the modernization of the House of Lords”.

Much else too in the speech was good to read, but I think you are missing an important issue about how the changes to election expense rules introduced for the 2010 general election are driving political parties in the wrong direction.

To put the issue briefly, we now have a long and short campaign period in which limits apply to constituency candidate election expenditure and those limits are relatively low. However, the national limits which also apply during that time are much more generous and there is no restriction on a party using its national limit in a very geographically concentrated way.

Therefore, a candidate in a marginal seat can do lots of extra campaigning beyond the constituency limit as long as it is of a form that can be charged against the party’s national limit.

What does this mean in practice? Well, for example it means that instead of a candidate writing a letter to local residents, candidates get their party leader to write to their residents instead.

Change who the letter is from and bingo, it no longer counts against the local limit – even if it still names the constituency and even if it urges people to vote for that candidate’s party.

The net result is that the rules are encouraging all parties to nationalise their election campaigns far more, talking less about local candidates and more about national leaders.

Of course, many voters were and will be interested to hear your views and those of other party leaders. But the overall encouragement the rules provide to nationalise campaigns, taking the emphasis away from the attributes of local candidates and further encouraging the presidentialisation of our politics, runs quite against what we should be doing to improve the health of our democracy. Moreover, the widespread ability to charge campaigning against the national limit greatly undermines the power and the point of the constituency limits.

We should be seeking greater focus on whether or not individuals, particularly incumbent MPs, are doing or would do a good job. As you said, we should also be tackling the influence of big money on elections.

Yet what is happening with election expenses is doing the opposite. Regrettably, my predictions from before the election have turned out to be right: amongst all parties we saw a shift towards ‘national’ campaigning. It’s legal, it’s what Parliament explicitly decided (because proposals to avoid this from David Heath MP were not adapted) but it is still something we should seek to change.

Both you and the Prime Minister will know just how many letters you each sent to voters, in marginal seats but charged against the national limit instead.

All that was only in the first election under these new rules, yet we know from previous rule changes how the competition between parties drives such changes further and further in successive rounds of elections.

You talk often in your speeches, including on Thursday, about thinking long term. Long term thinking on electoral rules requires tackling this trend that we saw building in 2010 before it is too late.


Mark Pack

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in Election law and Op-eds.


  • NoOffenceAlan 11th Sep '10 - 11:54am

    I’m sorry Mark, but what is wrong with our campaigning becoming more national and less local? Our success should not be dependent on the ‘pot luck’ of where our committed activists happen to live.
    More than ever now, we need a consistent message (I would even go as far to say, idealogy) that can be promoted nationally.

  • Alan – that isn’t really Mark’s point but that these “national” campaign limits actually render the idea of local spending limits irrelevant.

    “Change who the letter is from and bingo, it no longer counts against the local limit – even if it still names the constituency and even if it urges people to vote for that candidate’s party.”

    Is that really the case? Looking at the stuff I’ve seen produced that didn’t seem to be so. People were even reluctant to do anything that mentioned Lancashire or the North West

  • The splitting of the campaign expenses into long and short periods is a complete PITA for agents and completely artificial, another trap for the unwary – one with jail implications.

    It needs to go – one 3 month reporting period before polling day would be sensible – but when did that ever count!

  • Katie Geary 8th Oct '10 - 5:25pm

    Its not just the literature that is split. I have seen returns where a leaflet was split 50% National, 25% Boroough 25% Constituency. The deliovery of the same leaflet was split National 55% Borough 20% Constituency 25%.
    Van hire for moving the helpers was split 95% national 5% constituency. Surely this cannot be correct. The National expendicture here surely must now be logged on the National expendicture returns. It has to be or this is a big problem.

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.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

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


Recent Comments

  • Chris Moore
    @Paul: the Oxford result isn't a Green gain. A Green councillor resigned to cause the by-election. (S/he was first elected in 2022.) It's a three member ward...
  • David Raw
    Argyll & Bute had successive Liberal/Lib Dem MPs for twenty eight years as recently as between 1987 and 2015....
  • David Le Grice
    TBF that first Newham result actually is impressive since the greens have recently come ahead of us by default in urban areas and Newham isn't even one of those...
  • Paul Barker
    That Oxford result is a Green gain, from Labour....
  • Ruth Bright
    Just to elaborate...In the last few minutes of the morning session Swinson explains how she was pushing and pushing to see the Second Sight report. The enquiry ...