5 ms·

Political advertising is regulated in the UK.

by johneth 8y ago

malvosenior 8y ago
This seems like a great example as to why that's a bad idea.
- johneth 8y ago
  That sentence makes no sense.
repolfx 8y ago
Only during campaigns. This sword cuts both ways. The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain, let alone things like unbilled time of the civil service. They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This, we are told, is OK, because the spending happened a few weeks before the official campaigning period began, and thus the usual rules about political advertising did not apply. Well, if these rules being applied to the letter can let the Remain campaigners flout the spirit of the spending rules (which is fine by me - that's the point of written rules) then for sure, this campaign also doesn't have to follow any of those rules, as it's outside the election / referendum controlled periods.
- benj111 8y ago
  The government sent out that mailshot, not the remain campaign. Same with the unbilled civil service time. During an election should the incumbent party be billed for all the extra security for the Prime Minister, Chancellor etc? We have party politics, sometimes its hard/impossible to separate government from party.
- stordoff 8y ago
  > The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain As benj111 points out, it was the _Government_, not the Remain campaign. Different rules apply to them (they are prohibited from campaigning _at all_ during the 28 days prior to the referendum). Furthermore, a large percentage of distribution (to England) was done at a spend time when the spending rules did not apply at all (which to my understanding means the Leave campaign could have _also_ spend more during that time). > They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This is an exaggeration. The cost of the mailshot was £9.3m[1] - the Leave campaign could spend up to £7m (in the regulated time - as above, I believe it is unlimited outside of that), with UKIP a further £4m (and other groups could spend up to £700k). More, yes, as the Remain campaign could _also_ spend up to £7m, but "far, far more" feels like an overstatement. [1] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7579/CBP-7579.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
  - repolfx 8y ago
    This is sophistry - the Remain campaign was the government. It was the official position of the government and the entire thing was organised by them. There was simply no distinction between them at all. Again, people here are finding ways to excuse behaviour for their favoured team based on legalistic readings of the rules. Which is fine, if it's applied consistently. Of course it isn't because the goal here is not to be fairly applying campaigning rules, but rather to try and stop the UK leaving the EU via any means possible.

Political advertising is regulated in the UK.

malvosenior 8y ago

This seems like a great example as to why that's a bad idea.

johneth 8y ago
That sentence makes no sense.

repolfx 8y ago

Only during campaigns. This sword cuts both ways. The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain, let alone things like unbilled time of the civil service. They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This, we are told, is OK, because the spending happened a few weeks before the official campaigning period began, and thus the usual rules about political advertising did not apply. Well, if these rules being applied to the letter can let the Remain campaigners flout the spirit of the spending rules (which is fine by me - that's the point of written rules) then for sure, this campaign also doesn't have to follow any of those rules, as it's outside the election / referendum controlled periods.

benj111 8y ago
The government sent out that mailshot, not the remain campaign. Same with the unbilled civil service time. During an election should the incumbent party be billed for all the extra security for the Prime Minister, Chancellor etc? We have party politics, sometimes its hard/impossible to separate government from party.
stordoff 8y ago
> The Remain campaign completely blew the legally mandated spending limits for campaigning in a single mailshot to every home in Britain As benj111 points out, it was the _Government_, not the Remain campaign. Different rules apply to them (they are prohibited from campaigning _at all_ during the 28 days prior to the referendum). Furthermore, a large percentage of distribution (to England) was done at a spend time when the spending rules did not apply at all (which to my understanding means the Leave campaign could have _also_ spend more during that time). > They spent far, far more money than the Leave campaign did. This is an exaggeration. The cost of the mailshot was £9.3m[1] - the Leave campaign could spend up to £7m (in the regulated time - as above, I believe it is unlimited outside of that), with UKIP a further £4m (and other groups could spend up to £700k). More, yes, as the Remain campaign could _also_ spend up to £7m, but "far, far more" feels like an overstatement. [1] http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7579/CBP-7579.pdf http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7...
- repolfx 8y ago
  This is sophistry - the Remain campaign was the government. It was the official position of the government and the entire thing was organised by them. There was simply no distinction between them at all. Again, people here are finding ways to excuse behaviour for their favoured team based on legalistic readings of the rules. Which is fine, if it's applied consistently. Of course it isn't because the goal here is not to be fairly applying campaigning rules, but rather to try and stop the UK leaving the EU via any means possible.