Total Ad Money in 2004 Campaign

[Pangloss]

My apologies, I did not intend to suggest that we should have a Greek style democracy, my point was that if the majority of the people you represent don't want you to do something, then you shouldn't do it! The government serves the people, not the other way around.

 

Sure. I mean generally speaking I agree with that, although there's a reason why I'm more of a "centrist" than a "populist". If a crowd's heading for a cliff, I'm not about to follow 'em off. (chuckle) There's a reason why you balance popular rule with a strong constitution.

[TimeTraveler]

I for one appreciate the brits and the aussies support. Regardless if you support the war or not, I appluad you for being there, and do not think america will forget if our help is needed by you fine folks.

 

P.S. and all the other countrys helping us!

 

by the way I supported the need to take Saadam down for genocide, but I do not fully support the way america has handled it. But I am American and I will stand by my country live or die! I am sure you can understand.

[LuTze]

It's a bit naive to infer that all those who voted for Bush supported the war. Many of them will have voted for him despite[/u'] it, for whatever reasons.

A belief that gays should not have the same rights as 'proper' couples, a belief that abortion is wrong and should be illegal, a belief that stem-cell research is wrong, a belief that having religon anywhere near government/politics is a great idea. Take your pick.

[Sayonara]

Am I a US voter?

[LuTze]

Did I say you were?

[Sayonara]

No, but the other explanation as to why you'd be telling me to take my pick is a silly one.

 

[edit] The penny just dropped. Long day at work.

[LuTze]

Goodo

[YT2095]

here`s an interesting thought thought tho` based upon rough esstimates.

 

Bush spent 229 million, we only allow about 1 mil in the UK for our "leaders"

 

I`m not sure exactly how many states there are in the USA, but if I use 50 then that`s about 4.6 mill per state.

 

thus far it looks about 4x the spending we`re allowed here, but when you consider the size of some states will quite happily fit England in a few times over, that`s still not TOO bad.

 

don`t forget, unlike the UK, there are Radio and TV stations that need to be paid for each advert, each state has it`s own station(s).

I for one can see HOW the cost maybe alloted to each, Ignoring the folks that write the stuff and take the footage for each.

 

Just a thought

[Aardvark]

h when you consider the size of some states will quite happily fit England in a few times over' date=' that`s still not TOO bad.

[/quote']

 

Only in terms of space. In population terms England is a fair bit larger than your individual states.

[YT2095]

agreed, however a radio or TV station still has to have the power to reach even the remotest of people, that still costs money!

[Sayonara]

Conveniently, the USA has about 4.6 times the population of the UK.

[YT2095]

ROFLOL, Serious?

that`s a bit of surprise I must admit!

 

Convenient fits too

 

so that`s roughly still the same spent per head as is here in the UK.

 

or is my maths sucky again?

[Sayonara]

Pretty much the same, yeah (except it's dollars not sterling, obviously).

[YT2095]

so dollars / sterling we have about what? $1.70 per quid? or there abouts?

 

I`m not saying ANY of it`s value for money, but "overspending"??? it seems about average to be honest.

[Pangloss]

Is a quid a pound?

 

Just curious.

[Sayonara]

Yes.

 

That's where the sick squid joke comes from, in case you were wondering.

[Pangloss]

The wha....?

 

English currency has always been a source of (respectful) amusement to me, ever since I went to England as a youngster. I believe I was 12, because I'm pretty sure it was 1977, as a lot of the double-decker busses were painted silver for the Queen's 25th anniversary (if my memory hasn't failed me). I believe you guys had just switched over from the old system, which apparently had all sorts of strange rules about shillings and whatnot, into a more metric-like system with 100 pennies to the pound. (Totally talking off the cuff here, by all means correct me if I'm wrong.) At any rate I just remember finding the whole thing endlessly fascinating.

 

Neil Stephenson has an amusing scene early in "Quicksilver" that takes place between Isaac Newton and a lens grinder at Stourbridge Fair in 1665, just before the plague and great fire. The scene basically consists of Newton negotiating the purchase of some lenses for experimentation, and it more or less builds on the familiar territory of complicated English currency and by showing how endlessly MORE complex it must have been at that time. "Black currency", "pieces of eight", people chopping bits off coins, etc. Really great stuff. (If anybody wants to hunt that down, it's around page 84 of the hardcover edition. Great way to pass a few minutes over a cup of coffee at the bookstore.)

[Ophiolite]

Sayonara and YT, you are either engaging in some very subtle humour that I cannot fathom, or you are aliens briefly absconding with the personae of our much loved moderators, or you are wrong.

 

Campaign spending in the UK is limited during the three or four weeks of the campaign. There is a limit for each candidate (635(?) MP's) and for each national party.

Each candidate is limited to a base amount of just over 5,000 pounds (No I didn't miss out any zeros.) plus around 5p per elector in his/her constituency. That's probably worth a further 2,500 pounds. So the total expenditure per candidate is limted to about $12,000.

At the national level each party is limited to just over 15 million pounds. Neither of the main parties reached this limit in the 2001 election.

Labour - £10,945,119

Conservatives - £12,751,813

Lib Dems - £1,361,377

SNP - £226,203

Plaid Cymru - £87,121

Expenditure by all the individual candidates was around 11 million pounds.

Thus the total spending for parties and candidates and others (e.g trade unions) at the 2001 election was just over 40 million pounds, say $75,000,000. A far cry, even if you use the multiplier of 4.6 for population difference, from being about the same level.

So, the US may have the best government money can buy, but perhaps the UK has the most affordable.

[Sayonara]

Doing it properly isn't fun.

[Ophiolite]

English currency ........apparently had all sorts of strange rules about shillings and whatnot

Really Pangloss! It was quite simple. There were 240 pennies (designated by the letter d) in the pound (or quid' date=' designated by the letter [b']L[/b]). There were twelve pennies in a shilling (or bob, designated by the letter s), so there were twenty shillings in the pound. You could also get a halfpenny (or ha'penny), quarter penny (or farthing) and, here I go out on a limb, an eighth of a penny (or groat), but they were even before my time. There were threepenny coins (thruppenny bits) sixpence's (or tanners),

two shilling coins (or florins), half crowns (which were two shillings and sixpence), but no longer any crowns. And of course guineas, whose value fluctuated through the centuries but settled down to be twenty one shillings, i.e. one pound and one shilling. Those were used in bespoke tailors and Harrod's and the like to keep out the riff-raff.

It's probably not surprising then that the abbreviation for this currency construct was L.S.D.

 

Edit: I forgot about the ten bob note.

[Pangloss]

[TimeTraveler]

Lol

[Douglas]

[img']http://www.patfrank.com/portfolio.jpg[/img]

[Mad Mardigan]

Some things you dont count for with the election money though, the Republicans spent some of the 200 million on other key canidates, to get Dashel out, get certain members elected.

[Douglas]

Some things you dont count for with the election money though, the Republicans spent some of the 200 million on other key canidates, to get Dashel out, get certain members elected.

Mad'M, it was worth 200 Mil to get Daschle out. I had heard that he was trying to portray himself as a centrist while campaigning in S Dakota.

 

What a joke.