|From Croydon Advertiser June 22nd 2012|
The online version can be viewed here.
Recently I have been invited on behalf of Croydon Green Party to comment on a couple of breaking stories reported in the Croydon Advertiser. As is always the case, it is difficult to understand the context of the comment if only a couple of lines are selected from the response.
Full response to questions below:
Do you think it is meaningful that the two parties who spent the most got the most votes?
Yes. We live in the best democracy money can buy.
How does the party decide how much money to spend on a candidate?
All the separate local Green parties in London club together in order to purchase election materials. For example generic leaflets were printed that could be used all over London. Our share was nearly all the £2205.11 we spent. Nearly all the money the Green Party raises for our election campaigns comes from members. We don't have big business donors to tap into for cash. In fact, we check the backgrounds of all our donors to ensure they match our ethics.
Do you think more spending on the campaign would have boosted candidate’s chances?
Yes I do. Parties spend money to increase awareness of their respective brands, and to remind their supporters that the need to come out and vote. If we could have spent money on a few billboard posters, I am sure that would have boosted our chances.
Are you surprised at the extent of the gap between the top two and the other three?
Unless we have state funded political parties, we will continue to see the Conservative Party funded by bankers and financial institutions in the City, and the Labour Party predominately funded by the big trade unions. This gives these two parties an unfair advantage. Moreover, we have seen once in power these parties use their standing to secure even more questionable donations, through, cash for peerages, cash for questions and cash for access.
Tags croydon, greenparty