Is Cameron trying to buy the election?
Labour should check the figures before it adopts this line
By George Eaton Published 30 December 2009 11:46
It must count as some achievement to simultaneously attract the ire of Jack Straw and Simon Heffer. That's the position in which David Cameron finds himself this morning, with both, to varying degrees, accusing the Tory leader of attempting to buy the election.
Here's Straw:
At the same time that Mr Cameron tells the British people we face "austerity", he has ordered his party to fight the most expensive election campaign in British political history. It is an American-style campaign, costing millions, with wealthy suitors each paying £50,000 to join David Cameron's dining club, and British high streets covered with billboards bankrolled ultimately from Belize. Mr Cameron says the Conservatives have changed, but what we are seeing is an attempt by his party to buy the next general election.
And here's the Heff:
I am told that the budget for the forthcoming campaign has been agreed, and it will be £18m. How does that resonate with a country in the grip of austerity? What does it suggest about the party's understanding of the value of money? What if a second campaign had to be funded later in 2010? Given the circumstances, would a little more restraint not have been in order? Given, also, the very obvious mess that the government has made of the country, is it really going to take £18m to put that message across?
Should the Tories have amassed an £18m election war chest, it will be the most expensive campaign this country has seen. But not by much. At the 2005 election Labour spent a record £17,939,617 -- £87,000 more than the Tories' £17,852,240.
If Labour is to criticise Cameron with any credibility, it will have to run a fairly lean campaign itself. Given the state of the party's finances, it may be forced to do so.
Whether this line of attack will prove effective either way is doubtful. Next to the £850bn bank bailout and the £187bn deficit, £18m will appear a piffling sum to the voters. Attacking the size of the Tories' campaign budget may even prove a distraction from the related but separate issue of Lord Ashcroft's tax status.
In order to portray the Tory showing as insensitive and profligate, Gordon Brown would have to run a John Major-style soapbox campaign. Such an approach would complement Brown's hairshirt image and could even give Labour a chance to resurrect the effective slogan "Not flash, just Gordon". I'd be surprised if Labour strategists weren't considering this approach for the election.
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists




















6 comments
@ Swatantra
First of all, "buying votes" is illegal. Campaigning is not. If keeping Brown in costs us £178 billion per annum, I think spending one 10,000th of that to help kick him out is a good deal. After all, Labour spent more in 2005 to give us Brown, and I bet I shan't find a single complaint from you about that back then...
Ha, it seems Mr Straw has forgotten that the unions have put about 12 miilion in Labour's coffers over the past 6 years and that many union members are being paid my government departments but will serve as labour activists.
Mr Straw also seem to have forgotten that his constituency is a prime example of perhaps not a government buying the elections through lots of government jobs and money for schools, it certainly is quite a good attempt at bribing the electorate in some constituencies.
I'd happily donate any money the Tories wanted to get rid of this labour , cheap in the long run
Absolutely disgrace spending £18m on buying votes, when poor ordinary folk are struggling to make ends meet during this worldwide economic downturn. And if the Tories ever get into power expect even more savage cuts and hardship on the most vulnerable in society.
Next to the £850bn bank bailout and the £187bn deficit, £18m will appear a piffling sum to the voters. Attacking the size of the Tories' campaign budget may even prove a distraction from the related but separate issue of Lord Ashcroft's tax status.
I don't think that's the point. The point of pushing this line is to class war narrative (though not explicitly).
Ashcroft's status should be part of that narrative