Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let’s end the nonsense of sterile PPBs and have proper paid
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Let’s end the nonsense of sterile PPBs and have proper paid for TV political ads
Right from the beginning of commercial TV in the UK nearly 60 years ago political advertisements have been banned. The result is that UK elections are totally different from US ones where TV advertising totally dominates.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Banning ads is good thing, can you imagine the run up to the election seeing endless videos of Dave/George and Ed/Ed... makes me shudder.
Meanwhile, another "bottom of the range" poll : YouGov/Sun poll tonight: CON 32%, LAB 39%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 13%. Another 7 point Labour lead.
The same 30 second spots are repeated over and over until voters tune them out.
The size of your wallet can have more impact than your ideas or engaging with people on the ground.
It is a bad idea because elections are treated as playthings by the wealthy and the downright deluded.
Parties and politicians should aim to engage more with voters in person and at meetings rather than expecting them to be passive recipients of TV and radio ads that are based on feedback from focus groups.
I hope we keep our system as it is.
TV ads are very effective and very expensive. If you need to compete in an election with TV ads, you need to raise a lot of money. To raise that money you have to spend a lot of time fund-raising, and write laws to help your donors instead of helping voters.
In theory it is possible to restrict money coming in and out directly instead of restricting how you can spend it, but this turns out to be quite hard to do in practice. It's more effective to restrict the ways you can spend money effectively.
This is one aspect of the British political system that actually works. They'd be mad to change it.
The Scottish National party’s proposal for a currency union between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK would be less stable than the eurozone, UK ministers will argue on Tuesday
If only he could do this every day.
Now all the tea party tories need is yet more amazing polling before their May local election triumph.
*tears of laughter etc.*
The only ways to increase voter participation in a big way are to have a media that does not treat politicians with such utter disdain at all times (e.g. the Osborne in first class non-story), or compulsory voting.
Having paid ads on TV will not improve politics; it will only improve the bank balances of advert makers and TV companies.
In addition, it would be hard for a TV company to treat a party giving them £5 million in ad revenue to one giving them nothing. Bias will creep in, whether by accident or design.
Why do you say virtually the same thing on the site every day?
It's a real puzzle isn't it?
No, it isn't. It would at least have the dubious 'benefit' of crippling smaller parties like the lib dems, greens, UKIP etc. REAL f****ing fast. Even labour and the tories would be bound to get themselves deeper into debt and they aren't exactly running their finances very well as it is.
Also, I'm less sure that the disconnect with the younger generations is due to the media politicians are using, and more to do with the actual message.
Don't worry if you are incapable of understanding. It would require you to grasp the story I was replying to, how many times it has already popped up and the ability to apply the same standards to all posters, yes, sadly for you even those who are PB tories.
http://myscienceacademy.org/2013/04/14/the-33-most-beautiful-abandoned-places-in-the-world/
Having been way in Australia for three weeks seeing my newest grandchild, it's good to see nothing much has changed on the UK political scene.
Margaret Thatcher died and elements of the nasty party celebrated. The Oz presenters were a little puzzled by it ... it seemed un-British. I tended to agree. I didn't support her politics but that sort of gloating is childish at best.
UKIP look to be with us for a while, and the economy will decide the next election.
Thanks to jet-lag, I can read the early morning posters for a change - no difference there either.
Incidentally, I had to watch Peppa Pig for the first time, and I was struck by how every episode finished with the family rolling on the floor, crying with laughter. Plagiarism from Mr Pork?
Do you think Britain would be better or worse
off economically if we left the European Union,
or would it make no difference?
Better: 34(-1)
Worse: 30(-4)
No Diff: 17(+1)
DK: 18(+2)
Do you think it would be good or bad for jobs
and employment if Britain left the European
Union, or would it make no difference?
Good: 35(+2)
Bad: 27(-3)
No Diff: 22(+1)
DK: 17(0)
And do you think you personally would be
better or worse off if we left the European
Union, or would it make no difference?
Better: 21(-4)
Worse: 17(-2)
No Diff:45(+7)
DK: 17(-1)
I googled it and found nothing on the potential problems associated with it between Douglas and London. Ever. Surely this is not yet another scare story to instill fear on the plebs and unsound of mind via the MSM?
If it is not a problem for the Isle of Man historically then why on earth would it be a problem with one of England's biggest future trading partners? I guess the lack of oil and whisky and Scottish VAT revenues to balance the debt might be an issue, but that is the UK's problem not Scotland's surely?
Since so many of his own MPs don't seem to trust him he might just have a problem persuading the kippers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/cartoon/
If politicians want to get engagement with the public, then it would perhaps help to have something worth believing in and voting for. Its our current crop of zero's going round whipping up apathy, they have only themselves to blame.
(Apologies if this comes up twice, but seem to be having trouble with vanilla!)
Don't be so touchy, Mr Pork, your posts can be very incisive.
But come on, you're a member of the pig family, you do a lot of ROFL-ing, and you can be two-dimensional at times. You are Peppa Pig!
But don't worry, your secret is safe with me.
Don't worry, the fact that it will always soar above their heads is most gratifying.
Bit of a contrast to the supposed "primary" in Granita between Blair and Brown that probably cost about 50 dollars in US terms.
It does, however, make you reflect on the sterility of our politics. The last few election campaigns by all parties have been entirely composed of manufactured events in front of selected audiences which according to the poles have changed almost no one's mind. The last politician who actually went out to speak to the people in an election was John Major in 1992 with his soap box. That was thought a high risk strategy at the time by someone who was not the favourite at the start.
The risk going forward is that the elections become entirely about the leadership debates which themselves risk going sterile very quickly as the American experience is that everyone focusses on not making a mistake and playing safe producing the same old cliches.
Final thought, why do PBBs have to be so boring? I still remember the Kinnock one, it was excellent. Maybe parties should put more time and effort into them when they can go on Youtube and other internet formats and be seen by a wider range of people. What if the parties produced PBBs like that hilarious "Common People" song about Cameron and Osborne at the last election? I think there is more room for innovative thinking in our current structure.
The US model is instructive. The great deal of advertising is spent not on promoting one side but on knocking the other. While that's less effective in a system with more than two parties, I suspect we'd still see much the same here: negative campaigning is effective. Of course, that might be good news if you're not one of the two main parties and therefore benefit by default by being 'not the others'.
Consequently, the idea that it would raise participation is hopeful at best. Participation in the US is poor by UK standards (admittedly, the registration rules don't help there), and negative TV / radio ads would be more likely to depress turnout than increase it.
Mr. Herdson, that would be precisely my problem as well. I've said before that I feel a large part in the decline of voter turnout is the substantial level of smearing and negativity, primarily aimed by the left at the Conservatives from 1997 onwards. A US system would massively accelerate this and make it more widespread.
But also curious how many journos are 'suddenly' picking up on old quotes by Farage.
The very unfortunate words Farage was alleged to have made concerning ethnic minority voters being another case in point.
Some might almost be tempted to think that Crosby may be keeping himself quite busy.
I guess we'll never know.
This should really boost overseas investment.
http://www.lefigaro.fr/social/2013/04/22/09010-20130422ARTFIG00578-vent-de-fronde-generale-contre-la-loi-d-amnistie-sociale.php
McBride's doings were the work of the left as well. And as for your party, was it not the criminal Huhne who are accused a Cabinet colleague of acting like Goebbels? Was it not renowned cactus murderer Clegg who (pre-election, I believe) said that wanting less European integration (ie Conservative policy) was tantamount to being soft on paedophilia?
A somewhat unorthodox way to describe it, but money did indeed have a small part to play if we are to believe the tales. Blair supposedly splashing out for rabbit and trendy polenta to establish his trendy modern image with Brown scorning such things and ordering a glass of water so as to be clear this was all about business. Specifically the business of succession, promises and most importantly, when.
All the more curious that Cammie's love of all things Blair extended to making the chancellor seemingly indispensable. Maybe one day he will finally realise that it didn't end well for Blair and Brown and is extremely unlikely to end well for Cammie and Osbrowne either.
Thatcher did win votes by increasing home ownership, Osborne's schemes/scams wont. That can only be achieved by either house building increasing at a greater rate than the need for them thereby driving prices down or by a transfer of rented housing to owned housing. This happened with Thatcher with right-to-buy but if anything the opposite is happening now with investors removing houses from owner occupation with buy-to-let.
While house prices might be rising now in oligarch, banker and luvvie land that will cause nothing but even greater resentment in areas where elections are actually decided.
And resentment against the 'rich', 'bankers' etc is one thing the Cameroons desperately don't need.
Farange in the pub isn't a good look either
http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Activist Centre/Press and Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto2010
Well here's a chance to buy a house for £10,000 in a historic market town in a safe northern Conservative constituency:
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-38005381.html
Impressions that the south-east is doing well economically after it had benefitted most from the Brown bubble and then was bailed out 'by the rest of the country' are a boost to UKIP everywhere else.
And I am aware that the south-east might not have benefitted most from the Brown bubble and that the suggestion that it was bailed out 'by the rest of the country' is contentious.
But they are widely believed elsewhere and what people believe is more important than the truth.
On topic, hell no, for the reasons lucidly set out by David Herdson. To reply to Old King Cole, I don't know of any European countries that allows paid PPBs. Generally all parties get some free slots to put their views. For instance, Denmark gives you IIRC 12 minutes per party (regardless of size but the parties that were biggest last time get the slots nearest the election)) and then 45 minutes being questioned politely but in considerable detail on party policy. Works well IMO. They also have a 10-party leader debate, and that works OK too.
http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm
But also curious how many journos are 'suddenly' picking up on old quotes by Farage.
The very unfortunate words Farage was alleged to have made concerning ethnic minority voters being another case in point.
Some might almost be tempted to think that Crosby may be keeping himself
Did Farage really say that about Jesus? As a Christian I heartily approve of his comments!
Still not a KIPper though
"He said: "The chancellor is arguing in his paper that the UK would be the successor state, that it would hold on to the pound and we somehow could not get access to that.
"If that is his position then the UK as a successor state is obliged to hold on to all the debt and we would be liberated from a population share of UK debt of £125bn."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-22251103
Curious indeed.
The next master stroke must be to get Van Rompuy & Clegg to explain the benefits of the EU to the British people; that'll soon put UKIP's gas at a peep.
Unspoofable ;^)
Osborne should just resign during his speech...
"Let’s end the nonsense of sterile PPBs and have proper paid for TV political ads."
Half right Mike.
Ban the PPBs and the political ads.
This is typical SNP "automatic" membership of NATO / the EU / Sterling - it turns into "negotiated" membership sooner or later.....and then they claim "we've always said we'd have to negotiate".....
Glad to see Swinney says Scotland's share is £125bn - he was arguing it was £56 bn a week ago:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-22134809
There's a very respectable argument, based on the principle of freedom of speech, that such ads should be allowed. But I'm not sure we really want to go there.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22251466
Ding dong!
One of the things that surprised me was how large the audience was, and how glad they were for the opportunity to be a part of the political dialogue, in some small way.
I think that there is great potential for large numbers of ordinary people to become more involved in politics in this country, in a constructive way. To his credit, Cameron did a little in this regard with his Cameron Direct events.
I'm fairly sure a trifling small detail like that won't come up in the 2015 GE campaign.
Certainly not after the tories smash UKIP in the locals and the EU elections... Probably.
Nevertheless, c'est absolument barking, n'est-ce-pas? It's almost as if Hollande wakes up each day thinking "how can I make my country look less attractive to potential employers?"
The implications of this proposed independence malarkey seem to have come as a complete surprise to the SNP. You'd have thought they'd have spent the last fifty years or so figuring out how it might work, but apparently not.
@michaelsavage: An interview with the Chancellor at a time when his whole economic plan is under pressure and he's asked why he cried AT A FUNERAL. #today
It certainly beats Second Class Conway out. Is it more or less deranged than days of continuous headline coverage of him not asking for or receiving money on a yacht? Tough call.
@BBCNormanS: Scot Finance Minister John Swinney in tit for tat warning to Coalition - exclude us from £ - and Scotland freed from Govt debt
You need to ask our resident all round numistmatist - Mark Senior - who when not conducting LibDem raids on Harpenden - is I'm sure a world authority on Mank Viking spheroid tokens of the 10th century - otherwise known as Balls !!
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b1d4547c-ab37-11e2-8c63-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz2RGsr3xGi
And therein lies the real problem with the charge of nebulousness: Mr Miliband is not guilty of it. If anything, his is the opposite fault. He is an astonishingly clear politician, one of the least tentative among postwar opposition leaders. The specific policies are not yet there but then they rarely are two years ahead of a general election. Still, it is already clear that he would tax the wealthy more, govern as an environmentalist and revise at least some of the government’s public service reforms.
Utterly delusional as we have come to expect from the scottish tory surger.
Why HMG and SNP don't just get round a table and produce some more feelgood Devo-ish policies/concessions and be done with it by the Summer is beyond me.
That will be the outcome anyway - some kind of substantial-ish "Out" vote, a long way short of majority, SNP says "we told you the strength of feeling", HMG says "we care about _everyone_ in the UK, here's another £20billion". Or whatever.
What a huge waste of time.
Err...
Obviously in practice they'd work something out, but it shows the idiocy of all these "What happens if one side decides to be a dick about it" type arguments. There are all kinds of ways the two sides could make things difficult for each other, and they wouldn't. If Scotland still wanted to use the pound, the two sides would cobble something together so Scotland could still use the pound.
I also think that one of the lessons of the AV referendum was that public opinion is more open to being changed then we often give it credit for. If the pro-independence side fight a good campaign, and the Unionists a bad one, they can still win the argument and the vote.
I agree that if separation occurred something would get sorted out, but that sort of dummy-spitting is seriously unimpressive.
And, as an aside, I presume that all imports of fish will be banned under a UKIP government, to ensure that the British fishermen are able to afford to earn a living when competing with industrial fish production in the rest of the world.
Clearly it is in both sides interests that these matters are resolved amicably and to mutual benefit - but pretending its a "no-brainer" as the SNP has done is less than honest...
On-topic, I was in Nevada and Southern California last October, prior to the Presidential election. The bulk of the political advertising I saw was not aimed at the Obama-Romney race but was much more about Senate and Congressional races. Local TV stations are much stronger than regional TV over here and in Palm Springs, the local TV channels all carried ads relating to the Congressional race between Mary Bono Mack and Paul Ruiz.
Now, it may be that this advertising is targetted - California is always going to vote Democrat in the Preaidential election while Congressional and Senate races were much more keenly contested. In a state like Ohio, I would imagine Presidential messages were more evident.
Given that we have virtually no regional television left in the UK, I can't see how you could run ads on a constituency by constituency basis so you'd be left with generalised national or regional messages which might be too vague to have an impact (how much effect do billboards have for example?).
In the same way, you couldn't do much with local elections though it might be more effective for something like a London Mayoral election.
I'm not as dogmatically opposed to paid advertising as some but I don't support a free-for-all. There needs, as some have alluded to, to be a "gentlemen's agreement" between and across all parties that advertising should be promotional rather than derogatory (after all, most advertising is promotional, buy my product).
I recognise the contradictory constraint that places with regard to freedom of speech but an informal agreement between parties predicated on improving voter engagement and turnout might be achievable.
What seems to be getting missed by the more excitable PB tories is that there are very clear sides on the independence referendum and no confusion whatsoever over which side the main parties support, whether it be Yes or No.
The same cannot be said for Cameron's supposed EU referendum where the very man who proposed it doesn't even know what side he will support . They will find out the true meaning of fighting over the detail the closer we get to the GE campaign in 2015. Even if UKIP weren't certain to make sure of that Cameron's own backbenchers will.