He claims that Sayeeda Wasi lied when she said that AV would cost around £250 million per election, that the figure was based on the assumption that counting machines would be needed for AV elections and counting machines aren't used in Australia, where they use AV.
Let's just assume for a minute that Chris is right and Sayeeda is wrong and counting machines will not be used. I think that even in this situation it is wrong for Chris to claim that Sayeeda was knowingly lying. But putting that to one side for a moment it is interesting to look at the relative costs of elections in the UK and Australia
The 2005 UK General Election cost about £80million for 27.2 million votes cast costing £2.94 per vote. The 2007 Australian Federal elections cost $163million (£105million) for 12.7 million votes cast costing $12.83 (£8.27) per vote. Australian AV elections cost almost three times (x2.81) as much as British FPTP elections.
Now for a bit of simple maths:
£80,000,000 x 2.81 = £224,800,000
Even if we choose not to use electronic counting machines (which we have done in every non PFTP election that I've been involved in) we are still looking at a cost very close to the £250,000,000 figure that Chris Huhne was getting so angry about. I now think it's about time he apologised for likening Sayeeda to Goebbels and addressed the real concerns that many people have about the cost of AV.
Posts
22 comments:
While I accept that cost has to be at least totted up. I don't in any way accept that we can't change the system because it costs more than the current one. Does your London Assembly election system cost more than first-past-the post? If so, you could suggest changing back to save money - would get rid of those Greens and most of the LibDems and get us back to the good old days, eh? Personally anything that puts even the slightest crack in the cosy LabCon old pal's act is fine by me. I have been waiting 40 years......
Paul,
You're missing the point I was making. Chris Huhne claimed that Sayeeda was lying and involved in dirty politics because she claimed that this system was much more expensive than FPTP.
I'm just showing that Sayeeda's maths was right and it is Huhne who is slinging muck.
James, any chance you could give us some indication now of the progress of your work to restore the A&E facilities at Queen Mary's? People you're pushing, who you've written to, lobbied etc?
I realise that yes or no to AV is dear to you currently but whilst your concern is on this matter hundreds of people could have done with the QMH facility.
Can constituents help?
Anon,
No more news since this I'm afraid:
http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2011/04/gps-and-councillors-put-forward.html
As far as I am aware the election for Mayor of Lewisham (covering three parliamentary constituencies) was counted by hand in 2010, although they did test the machines in previous elections.
Electronic counting the GLA and mayoral elections in London apparently costs £5.1m (2007 prices). Scaled across the country this would be about £50m. And since manual counting would cost 40% of this, the saving of manual counts would £30m. Why do you think AV would cost 5 times more per voter than the election of Mayor of London?
I suspect there are other costs involved in polling 13m people across an island substantially bigger than the entire continent of Europe.
However, the same article points out that manual counting is actually quicker as well as cheaper, so why would we be switching counting systems?
Everything points to the £250m figure being a complete myth. Channel 4 Fact Check states this is fiction. To continue pretending that the cost is £250m with no reasonable evidence is just repeating the lie.
What have you actually done towards this goal in the last three weeks? Please let us know. You were very keen on this issue just before the last election.
Sir
felt the need to repost this from the video on AV.
Sadly I still feel that I will vote Yes to the AV system for no other reason than I just cannot believe the rather expensive looking leaflet that fell through my letterbox from the NO campaign (how much did the leaflet cost by the way? Did the Conservatives foot the entire bill?).
Yes the leaflet declared that the alleged cost of £250M, could be spent on Schools and Hospitals. The magic word is "could" of course as it could also be spent on bombs, missiles, taxi fares, moats or duck houses.
If Mr James Cleverly would like to go on the record and guarantee that the £250M would be spent on Schools and Hospitals and prove with receipts ;) then the NO campaign can have my vote right now.
My vote is up for grabs
Jimmy,
The London Elections are not AV, there is only one round of recounts. The costs in Australia are the closest measure of projected costs here in the UK.
We might disagree about the projected costs, or even the methodology behind their formulation but that doesn't make Sayeeda, me or the No2AV team liars.
Repeating the claim that someone is a liar doesn't make it true.
You are still not answering the question about what you have done to bring back the A&E unit after you campaigned so vigorously for this just before the election.
My apologies to those discussing AV but I do not want this politician to get away with using our A&E to gain votes, only to let it close after an election and then drop it as if it never happened. This will simply happen on other matters too and I cannot abide paying someone I cannot trust. So I want to see him do something that actually helps local people rather than lose arguments on AV or bang on about nonsense that affects none of us.
What have you done Mr Cleverly?
When Channel 4 Fact Check state that the £250m cost is fiction I believe them and the facts, rather than relying on the flawed projections and methodology of the No2AV campaign.
I'm sure that you sincerely believe the myths around the cost of AV, and you are not deliberately trying to mislead anybody.
You are right about there being a difference between AV and Supplementary Vote system, although I doubt it makes much difference to the cost of the machines. But I doubt you would support Supplementary Vote method for electing single representatives to parliament any more than you would support any other change to the perfect FPTP system we have at present.
Can I also just mention that people who expect daily of weekly updates from politicians on private discussions about the future of hospitals are deluded. QMH A&E is gone, it isn't coming back, get used to it. And post in the comments section of relevant blog posts.
Jimmy,
Here is why I'm not convinced that we'll get much change out of £250,000,000 per election:
http://jamescleverly.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-public-sector-procurement-sucks.html
We're just not very good at getting thing for sensible money.
Your position is becoming less and less credible. You now appear to be justifying grossly inflated figures that appear across your site but saying that the government is not good at getting value for money.
Where was this logic when Boris claimed that it would cost £8m for conductors on all the new Boris Buses? Ken Livingstone claimed £108m, you claimed he was 'pulling figures out of his backside'. Channel 4 FactCheck put the figure at £114m.
In your words the No2AV campaign is pulling figures out of somebody's backside, and frankly it stinks!
What a shame you've given in. Another one down to the dodgy politician. Boris demanded a 'relentless display of public displeasure' against the politicians and bureaucrats who were taking away this facility, backed up by James. I am puzzled as to why that's no longer thought to be reasonable strategy. I won't post where James can ignore it, he is morally obliged to follow up on this.
As for being deluded, I was angry when I saw him campaigning, angrier when my prediction occurred (that the Tories would shut it anyway once the votes were in) and even angrier when I visited the alternative facility at QE and listened to what the staff had to say about the QE closure.
Mr Cleverly said he was in discussions some weeks ago, or have we been misled again?
Sir,
May I kindly and respectfully request that you withdraw or replace the no to AV advert on this blog that shows a soldier with the incredibly thoughtless mews tag of - he needs bulletproof vests not an alternative voting system.
Being ex forces, I find it ignorant and indeed cheap that such an arrogant and ignorant ploy is used to gain a few votes.
Sir if you had a shred of decency which I am sure you have drop the advert or post an "alternative" one.
I really wish we didn't have to have this silly argument about cost at all. Aside from the fact that you haven't even bothered to research whether Australia uses counting machines for federal elections (the answer is no), I find it disturbing that most of the arguments from the No camp are based on cost. Your argument is based upon the assumption that vote-counting machines will be used, for which I've not seen one shred of evidence for; it's entirely based upon assertion and presumption.
Secondly, I find it deeply disturbing and cynical for MPs and No campaigners to be fighting against a change in the electoral system on the basis of cost. Perhaps we should get rid of elections entirely because they have a cost? You know full well that the money spent on holding the referendum wouldn't have been spent elsewhere if it weren't held, and that voting No doesn't magically save the cost of holding a referendum.
Rather than listening to the spin of politicians and No2AV donors, let's try an independent, impartial fact-check. Channel 4 fact check finds your claims of cost are 'fiction' (http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-the-av-campaign-gets-dirty), and an internal leaked Treasury memo shows no plans to increase the budget for elections under AV.
If it weren't for the No campaign's dirty tactics, I'd actually consider voting against the change. Thanks to the misleading leaflets and shoddy arguments, I instead explain to people I know why the leaflet they've received from the No campaign is misleading and should be ignored.
Bradley,
You have missed the point of this post. There are a number of very good reasons not to change system and I've discussed many of them on this blog.
Chris Huhne call Sayeeda Wasi a liar because she said that AV would cost around £250 million. I gave the example of Australia for the very reason that they do not use counting machines to highlight the fact that even with a manual count the costs of AV are likely to be around the £250 million mark.
The Yes to AV campaign and the Lib Dems seem very uncomfortable with their claims being scrutinised or disagreed with.
You are in no position to accuse people of being uncomfortable with being scrutinised.
Anon,
Really, why is that?
So why couldn't this increased cost in Australia be down to other factors? Like having a much larger land-mass, meaning the ballots are spread out. And the fact that the counting of ballots occurs over a longer stretch of time due to allowing for delays in the ballots from rural areas? Unless all other variables between ours and the Australian electoral process can be removed, then I don't see how the comparison of cost is valid.
Regarding scrutiny, No2AV doesn't allow critical comments on its blog posts. It even refused to publish a comment from the Australian political analyst who they accused of not understanding Australian elections. It doesn't allow any comments whatsoever on its Youtube videos.
By contrast, The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign allows critical comments on its blog and its Youtube channel. (Even from a No campaign activist posting under multiple names from the same email address.)
I apologise for my brusque tone in my comments, but I'm increasingly irritated by attempts to convince people to vote no on the basis of disingenuous about the cost of AV.
Because you are still refusing to tell people what it is that you are doing with regard to QMH. I don't believe that you are doing anything ( you got the votes, why bother?).
Unfortunately you are depending on the intransigence of the great British public, and the fact that you would have to run up the aisle of Westminster Abbey naked next Friday to lose your seat it's so safe. From previous comments here this seems to be working for you. I wonder if people will think the same way when they try to use a local A&E and think back to the cynical campaign by local Tories just before the election only to drop it like a hot brick shortly afterwards.
I am genuinely sorry ( to those interested in AV) for posting here but the only alternative is to post where you will ignore it. Johnson asked for "relentless public displeasure" when you used a local A&E in an anti-Labour campaign; I don't see why we should treat you any differently.
Tell people what you are doing to put things right.
Anon,
Don't you see the irony of using the platform that I provide to accuse me of being scared of scrutiny? If I wanted to hide from criticism I would have deleted your posts.
I have come to realise that interacting with you is a futile exercise, you smear me constantly, you have your prejudice and you won't let go of it. When I ask you to substantiate the claims you make against me you fail to do so.
I am doing what I am able to do to protect services at QMH and have provided updates as and when I feel there is something significant to report and I will not be goaded into doing anything else.
You say that you don't want to post comments where they will be ignored, sorry but as of this post please take it as read that I will ignore everything you write.
If you want to contact me and discuss QMH sensibly like a number of my other constituents have done please email, write or phone and I will respond to you.
If you want an outlet for your attacks on me, get your own blog.
Unfortunately you are comparing oranges with apples. The cost in Australia counts in public funding with is calculated as a set amount per vote. This has absolutely nothing to do with the voting system. In the 2007 election mentioned public funding costs $50 million.
Post a Comment