Quote:
Originally Posted by douglas denny
Short answer: YES.
It is always good value for the money for a political party to put candidates into elections even if they ony get a few votes; because if they did not there would be no point in being a political party.
|
That is a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Some spending is better than others. Some is just wasteful while some can provide excellent value for money. Simply spending money does NOT mean that the party gets good
value.
In this specific case, it is not a huge sum in comparison to previous by-election budgets (Bromley), or indeed the opposition.
However, in 2005 UKIP received 1,162 votes in Henley. In the by-election they received 843 votes, although retained pretty much the same percentage. So, the £17K gave UKIP a loss of votes, but a steady share, against an increased number of opposition parties
The fact that the UKIP vote held, even with the BNP standing, suggests that UKIP actually gained some votes (there is a substantial crossover between the two parties) as well as losing some, if that makes sense.
Another question that should be asked, in regard to value, is what would have happened if UKIP hadn't spent the money? Would the vote have dropped? Avoiding negative publicity and morale drops has to be a factor in value for money.
And as I have said before, members should be encouraged by the fact that UKIP has the money to spend; it can still outspend the BNP and the Greens (its main competitors).