Saturday, November 02, 2019
Is this the correct use of taxpayers' money?
Having seen £100 million of our money poured down the drain in an advertising campaign designed to reinforce the government's message that we were leaving on 31st October, it is a bit galling to read this article in the Guardian.
The paper reports that Boris Johnson’s government has been accused of going on a spending spree using taxpayers’ money to woo voters in swing seats in the run up to the general election. They say that Ministers released details on Wednesday of plans to improve dilapidated town centres of key marginal seats mainly across the north of England and the Midlands. Public money is being spent to publicise the scheme using targeted Facebook advertisements sent to local people:
In an announcement on a government website, the department of housing, communities and local government claimed that part of a £3.6bn fund would be spent boosting rundown high streets across dozens of towns.
Adverts inform the public that “the government is investing up to £25m” in their local area, featuring the name and image of the local town. In reality, the sum going to each settlement is likely to be much smaller.
The seats being targeted include Wakefield, Bolton, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Mansfield, Lincoln, and Newcastle-under-Lyme as well as some coastal towns such as Lowestoft.
It also appears that public funding may have been used to buy adverts promoting government investment in Workington – the home of “Workington Man”, which some Tory-backing groups have suggested is the stereotypical individual who needs to be won over to win the election.
According to the Huffington Post, ministers authorised the adverts to go live on Tuesday – the same day Johnson received parliamentary support for a snap general election. However, on Friday night, it was reported that Facebook had pulled some of the government adverts. A spokesperson told Huffington Post:
“The adverts run by the MyTown page were not correctly labelled as being about social issues. Ads about social issues, elections or politics that appear on our platforms should include a disclaimer provided by advertisers.
On the face of it this appears to be an abuse of public funds. The Government is able to skirt rules that restrict public advertising spending during elections however, as parliament has yet to be dissolved and the campaign has not formally begun. Parliament has not yet dissolved and the civil service has not officially entered the pre-election period when it must remain neutral.
Whatever the justification, it hardly seems to be a correct use of our cash.
The paper reports that Boris Johnson’s government has been accused of going on a spending spree using taxpayers’ money to woo voters in swing seats in the run up to the general election. They say that Ministers released details on Wednesday of plans to improve dilapidated town centres of key marginal seats mainly across the north of England and the Midlands. Public money is being spent to publicise the scheme using targeted Facebook advertisements sent to local people:
In an announcement on a government website, the department of housing, communities and local government claimed that part of a £3.6bn fund would be spent boosting rundown high streets across dozens of towns.
Adverts inform the public that “the government is investing up to £25m” in their local area, featuring the name and image of the local town. In reality, the sum going to each settlement is likely to be much smaller.
The seats being targeted include Wakefield, Bolton, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Mansfield, Lincoln, and Newcastle-under-Lyme as well as some coastal towns such as Lowestoft.
It also appears that public funding may have been used to buy adverts promoting government investment in Workington – the home of “Workington Man”, which some Tory-backing groups have suggested is the stereotypical individual who needs to be won over to win the election.
According to the Huffington Post, ministers authorised the adverts to go live on Tuesday – the same day Johnson received parliamentary support for a snap general election. However, on Friday night, it was reported that Facebook had pulled some of the government adverts. A spokesperson told Huffington Post:
“The adverts run by the MyTown page were not correctly labelled as being about social issues. Ads about social issues, elections or politics that appear on our platforms should include a disclaimer provided by advertisers.
On the face of it this appears to be an abuse of public funds. The Government is able to skirt rules that restrict public advertising spending during elections however, as parliament has yet to be dissolved and the campaign has not formally begun. Parliament has not yet dissolved and the civil service has not officially entered the pre-election period when it must remain neutral.
Whatever the justification, it hardly seems to be a correct use of our cash.
Comments:
<< Home
It is not the correct use of taxpayers money.
The 25 million is NOT for each Town centre.Less will be given to each town.
Other town centres are just as in need
It is misleading, gives the voter (cos that is who it is aimed at) a carrot to vote Tory.
Electioneering before election expenses come into play
Facebook should follow twitter and not do political ads in election times.
It is part of today's campaigning where political ads target specific groups of voters on the internet. THESE ADS SHOULD HAVE THE POLITICALS PARTIES NAME ON THEM.
Post a Comment
The 25 million is NOT for each Town centre.Less will be given to each town.
Other town centres are just as in need
It is misleading, gives the voter (cos that is who it is aimed at) a carrot to vote Tory.
Electioneering before election expenses come into play
Facebook should follow twitter and not do political ads in election times.
It is part of today's campaigning where political ads target specific groups of voters on the internet. THESE ADS SHOULD HAVE THE POLITICALS PARTIES NAME ON THEM.
<< Home
