Does Billy Billionaire have the advantage over Annie Average?

Thursday 12 December 2019

A series of fictional characters were at the centre of debate in the States Assembly yesterday as Deputies debated significant reductions to election candidates' spending limits.

Deputies Rhian Tooley and Lindsay de Sausmarez sought to amend SACC's proposed spending limits for the 2020 election.

The committee responsible for delivering Guernsey's first-ever island-wide election next year believe candidates should be able to spend up to £9,000 of their own money campaigning for office. 

In order to help eliminate potential inequality between wealthier candidates and those less well-off, Deputies Tooley and de Sausmarez wanted the spending limit brought down to £2,300 and a grant of up to £500.

That attempt failed, however another amendment signed by them - which presented the States with a menu of alternatives all the way through from £3,000 to £8,000, as well as the option for a £500 States grant- is still in play. 

Pictured: Deputy Rhian Tooley said it should never be possible for an election candidate to outgun their opposition based solely on the financial resources they have available. 

Four hypothetical first-time candidates - Annie Average, Billy Billionaire, Chris Cash-Strapped and Danny Ditherer - were used to help conceptualise how different people would be affected by the spending limits.

Deputy Tooley suggested Billy Billionaire would have the upper hand, being in a position where he would be able to spend a total of £9,000 under SACC's proposals, while Annie Average would only be able to spend £1,000 of her own money and Chris Cash-Strapped would be limited to just £100.

"It should never be possible for a candidate to outgun his or her opposition based purely on the financial resources available to them," she told her fellow deputies. "How many among us would have been able to risk so huge a sum on attempting to enter the States? How then can we expect such a high cap to deliver a government that is representative of the Guernsey population?

"£9,000 will go an awfully long way if you have £9,000 to wager with no guarantee of return. For an average Guernsey person, £9,000 represents four months' gross wages."

However, SACC President Deputy Neil Inder said he was unable to support the amendment, as £2,300 wouldn't offer candidates enough freedom to interact effectively with voters.

"It's not all about us, it's not about candidates, it's about voter engagement," he said. "The price expenditure limits do not enable either candidates or parties to market themselves. It is not fair and it absolutely does not work.

Pictured: Deputy Neil Inder argued against the notion that next year's election could be bought under SACC's proposals.

"We are told time and time again that the election can be bought. It has been nonsense from the day it was mentioned. In 2016, 24 candidates spent £900 to £1,200 and 18 were elected. Eight other candidates spent between £1,200 to £1,500 and only three were elected. Five people spent £2,100 to £2,300 and three were elected. There's nothing in there that tells you this election can be bought. Most of the people that were elected spent between £900 and £1,500. It is an utter myth."

Rather than offering a grant to candidates, as was proposed in the amendment, SACC suggested benefits-in-kind, like creating a booklet of manifestos which would be delivered to all households on the electoral roll.

"This amendment would place an additional financial burden on the island, which the committee has attempted to avoid," Deputy Inder continued. "What is that figure likely to achieve? If the wealthier will buy the election, why on earth are you giving them another £500? It doesn't achieve anything at all."