Craig Nicol wrote:
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 16:29, Mark Goodge <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 16/04/2010 13:31, Richard Pope wrote:
The Straight Choice is going really well, but we still have big
gaps and
need some help to fill them. If anyone has a bit of time this
weekend,
please consider having a go at some of these:
http://www.thestraightchoice.org/notspots.php
Well, I live in a notspot, but I haven't had any leaflets yet. The
problem is that it's a safe Conservative seat, so the defending
incumbent doesn't really need to make much effort, while Labour and
the LibDems just aren't bothering round here.
Mark
Same story here, although it's a safe Labour seat. 14% swing to Lib Dem
required for a change.
Is this how the parties are saving money now they've got fewer donations?
It's nothing usual, it's a simple matter of conserving resources. Each
party has a finite amount of money to be spent, and they can achieve
better results (they think) by focussing it on seats where they are
likely to win, or likely to lose if they don't put resources in. What's
the point in spending money in a safe seat when you could use it to win
or hold on to a marginal?
Paul
--
Paul Waring
http://www.pwaring.com
_______________________________________________
Mailing list [email protected]
Archive, settings, or unsubscribe:
https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
