UKIP spent £11.4k on Crewe by-election

UKIPSW · 01-07-2008, 11:41 AM

Quote:

The three leading political parties spent almost £300,000 battling out May's Crewe and Nantwich by-election.

Each paid out close to £100,000 as they looked to take a seat which had been held by Labour MP Gwyneth Dunwoody for more than three decades.

According to figures released yesterday, of the total £326,771 spent on campaigning in Cheshire, 89 per cent was clocked up by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.

The biggest spenders were the Tories, who invested £97,357 in a successful campaign for candidate Edward Timpson.

The majority of their cash - £63,075 - was spent on unsolicited material to electors.

And it proved to be a winning formula as Mr Timpson got his message out and overturned a majority of more than 7,000.

Elsewhere, the Labour Party laid out a total of £96,213 as Tamsin Dunwoody finished second.

Much of that figure came from a bill of more £56,000 for agent and staff costs, plus accommodation and administration.

And, with an outlay of £16,803, the party also spent more on advertising than anyone else.

Nobody from either the Conservative or Labour parties was available for comment.

Dr Mick Temple, pictured, who lectures in politics at Staffordshire University, said the Tories would have invested heavily in direct marketing in a bid to convince voters that they were a viable alternative to Labour. Dr Temple added that he was slightly surprised at how equal the spending was between the two parties, as Labour would have expected to be punished for its Government in a mid-term by-election.

He said: "Labour could have spent a million pounds in Crewe and Nantwich and they still would not have won."

The Liberal Democrats outspent Labour by £727, but candidate Elizabeth Shenton ended up third with just over 6,040 votes - half of Ms Dunwoody's final total of 12,679.

The party spent £39,198 on agent and staff costs.

Spokesman Dave Smithson said that the Labour Party's fifth-place finish in Henley last week showed how easily a "third" party could be squeezed out of the picture in a by-election.

And he added that the fact that the Lib Dems' vote held up in Cheshire showed that matching the two other main parties had been money well spent.

Mr Smithson said: "We do spend our money where we feel we can get the best return for our investment.

"We can raise the funds from our party members to match the other two major parties. If we are going to compete we have to compete on every level and that included employing a high quality team to run a high quality campaign."

Miss Great Britain, Gemma Garrett, spent a total £20,747 as she polled 113 votes for Beauties for Britain.

Also running were: UKIP's Mike Mattrass (£11,411), independent Mark Walklate (£2,116), English Democrat David Roberts (£1,629) and Cut Tax On Petrol And Diesel's Paul Thorogood (£355). The Official Monster Raving Loony Party's Flying Brick spent nothing at all to secure his 236 votes and seventh place finish.

this is the sentinel - news, entertainment, jobs, homes and cars

Anthony Butcher · 01-07-2008, 11:49 AM

That's a lot less than UKIP has spent in previous by-elections. Sounds like they got off lightly.

ANGLO-STAFFS · 01-07-2008, 12:38 PM

Or are funds drying up?

Anthony Butcher · 01-07-2008, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANGLO-STAFFS

Or are funds drying up?

Well, that is possible. I don't think that they are as flush as they used to be, and I can't imagine that Alan Bown is too keen to put more money in after they stiffed him with the Electoral Commission.

It is more likely that they are saving up for the EU elections though.

GreenerWorld · 01-07-2008, 12:59 PM

The Green Party spent £284 (+£500 deposit) on this election. We could have spent about double that to up our vote by 1% if we'd had time to organise a freepost.

blueblood1920 · 01-07-2008, 01:00 PM

Henley expenses will be the interesting one.

Wowbanger TIP · 01-07-2008, 01:06 PM

So in light of these paltry sums (UKIP's expenditure would have been equivalent to 1.5% of the BNP's annual income) where does this leave Griffin excuse "we couldn't afford it"?

Incidentally the figures for UKIP's campaign are of the same order I estimated for the BNP's, around 20,000 quid at worst.

harryaldridge · 01-07-2008, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ANGLO-STAFFS

Or are funds drying up?

I think you'll find there were other reasons. Funds were not the cause.

blueblood1920 · 01-07-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wowbanger TIP

So in light of these paltry sums (UKIP's expenditure would have been equivalent to 1.5% of the BNP's annual income) where does this leave Griffin excuse "we couldn't afford it"?

Incidentally the figures for UKIP's campaign are of the same order I estimated for the BNP's, around 20,000 quid at worst.

The BNP had just fought a round of local elections and the London Elections which required a lot of our money so there would of been a struggle to fund a campaign in crewe.

Independent UKIP · 01-07-2008, 11:33 PM

This brand new news has been shunted off to the election archives section where it is rightly still being discussed. I think there is a bit of double standards here as, if UKIP had spent £114,110 on this by-election there is no way any forum moderator would have moved it to this archive part of the forum. Simple as.

01-07-2008, 11:49 AM	#2 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,738 Party: None	That's a lot less than UKIP has spent in previous by-elections. Sounds like they got off lightly. __________________ If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled! Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

01-07-2008, 12:38 PM	#3 (permalink)
ANGLO-STAFFS Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 563	Or are funds drying up?

01-07-2008, 12:59 PM	#5 (permalink)
GreenerWorld Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 19	The Green Party spent £284 (+£500 deposit) on this election. We could have spent about double that to up our vote by 1% if we'd had time to organise a freepost.

01-07-2008, 01:00 PM	#6 (permalink)
blueblood1920 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Liverpool Posts: 1,072 Party: BNP	Henley expenses will be the interesting one.

01-07-2008, 01:06 PM	#7 (permalink)
Wowbanger TIP Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 579	So in light of these paltry sums (UKIP's expenditure would have been equivalent to 1.5% of the BNP's annual income) where does this leave Griffin excuse "we couldn't afford it"? Incidentally the figures for UKIP's campaign are of the same order I estimated for the BNP's, around 20,000 quid at worst.

01-07-2008, 11:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
Independent UKIP Uber Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 2,230	This brand new news has been shunted off to the election archives section where it is rightly still being discussed. I think there is a bit of double standards here as, if UKIP had spent £114,110 on this by-election there is no way any forum moderator would have moved it to this archive part of the forum. Simple as.