DrLiamFox.com

Dr Fox has not only launched his campaign today - he's launched a campaign website.  It looks a lot more attractive than KenClarke.co.uk with an engaging 'FoxPop' 'movie endorsement' from Stephen O'Brien MP.  The site includes a blog but it isn't interactive.  The first posting on the blog is Mr O'Brien's July endorsement provided for this site.

Comments

[James Hellyer]

I've got BBCi to link their news story to the Fox campaign site. That's my good deed for the day.

[Selsdon Man]

It is better looking than Ken's!

Interactive web sites can be expensive. I believe that there is a cap of £25,000 on campaign expenditure that will restrict campaigning activities.

[Bishop Hill]

Selsdon Man!

A blog is an interactive website and can be delivered for free! The point is that the punters can't tell Dr Fox (or Mr Clark) what they think. Mr Clark has no blog and Dr Fox's doesn't allow comments.

[Guido Fawkes]

£25k cap - where is that rule?

[Simon C]

Fox's website has got a comment box. Go to "Fox Support" & you can send a question/comment in.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect candidates' websites to have totally open blog spaces where any old hostile can post unhelpful comments. That's what sites like this are for (in part).

[James Hellyer]

"Fox's website has got a comment box. Go to "Fox Support" & you can send a question/comment in."

I had a reply within an hour.

[James Maskell]

Talking about straddling...ooh err missus!

I thought the 25,000 cap was part of the leadership contest rules under Hagues system. Ive read it a few times in recent times.

[Editor]

Guido/ James - the £25K is a rule - one of the candidates was complaining about it to me. I don't quite know who made the rule/ where it is codified or who enforces it.

But Bishop Hill is right, of course... blogs can be free.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Ed - I had an equally vague understanding of the supposed £25k rule given to me by one of the camps.

The election expenses rule can be equally prohibitive during a General Election. I turned 30 and also got engaged during the 2005 campaign and was advised that any party could be seen as a personal expense by the Electoal Returning Officer - not a popular decision with my new fiancee!

[Simon C]

I also have a vague recollection, but that it might have been £100K in 2001.

If Howard loses on the rule change, and it's the same system as last time, £25K won't stretch very far - especially if there's a protracted contest.

[James Maskell]

While the massive democratic vote is going ahead as a vote so are the other reforms separately...whats everybodys opinions on the rest of the reforms? I dont like it, looks like too much centralisation for too litle in return.

[Selsdon Man]

There is a lot more to interactivity on the web than just blogs. I know that you can download blog software for free. It is integration with a fully interactive site (including surveys, games etc) that can be expensive.

[James Hellyer]

The £25,000 figure comes from chapter 6 of "A 21st Century Party". As these proposals come from amendments in a document that has not been tabled as a constitutional amendment by the Party Board, they cannot apply in this leadership election. The spending limit is therefore the limit prescribed by Schecule 2 of the Party Constitution, the limit applied in the 2001 election.

[Simon C]

"The spending limit is therefore the limit prescribed by Schecule 2 of the Party Constitution, the limit applied in the 2001 election."

Which is?

[James Hellyer]

"Spending by any candidate on their campaign is limited to £100,000, expenses must be detailed to the 1922 chairman and made available for inspection by party members, and no hopeful can fund their own campaign: all spending must come from donations - which must also be disclosed."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1410024.stm

[James Hellyer]

There's a new FoxPop on DrLiamFox.com.

This time it's from Oliver Heald MP.

[Selsdon Man]

100k - I stand corrected. But why does the Party want to reduce it by 75%? 25k seems low, especially if there is a members ballot!

[James Hellyer]

The suggestion to lower the expenditure limit to £25,000 (to be supplied by the party, rather than riased by the candidates), was part of the Monbiot package that the 1922 committee rejected. The only part they kept was the removal of membership voting rights. £25,000 would be low for a members ballot, but the idea was that there wouldn't be one.

[Coffee Monster]

Chris Grayling's 'Fox Pop' is up. He basically says Fox appeals to young professionals. I'm yet to be convinced.

[James Hellyer]

I'm a young professional. Dr Fox appeals to me. Case closed!