Proposals favour rich candidates
I CANNOT begin to understand how the States Assembly & Constitution Committee believes that raising the cap for an election campaign from £2,500 to £9,000 does not give undue influence to wealthy candidates. It may be the case that, with island-wide voting, it will be harder for candidates to reach the electorate than previously (although given the expansion of use of the internet I don’t find that argument particularly convincing). But the fact that the electoral system has changed does not make candidates nearly four times as wealthy. The original limit of £2,500 was set for a reason. Not to mention the fact that, if approved, any potential candidates only have six months to find the extra £6,500 to compete with their wealthier competitors on the campaign trail.
In my view Sacc has failed to see the wood for the trees and unwittingly or not have ended up pandering to the rich. It would be better, in my view, for candidates not to have full access to the electorate than to have an election which favours the wealthy. This thought may not have occurred to the Sacc.
If this proposal is adopted, we may find in future that Guernsey goes down the road of sponsored campaigns, where the wealthy can support as many candidates as they choose.
The last election was skewed in favour of female candidates. The next one looks like being skewed in favour of wealthy ones.
MATT WATERMAN,
Flat 2, 3, Burnt Lane,
St Peter Port,
GY1 1HL.
