“No to AV” campaign losing the plot?
Am I the only one I wonder thinking that the “NO to AV” campaign is running into trouble ?
First they bully persuade the BBC that they should not refer to this as “electoral reform” (too positive a word).
Then they discover that “media-darling-of-the-moment” Colin Firth is backing the “YES” campaign.
Then they run quite simply ludicrous ads on Liberal Vision telling our readers why they should vote NO.
Occassionally across the top of the LV site you will see an ad featuring a rather tasty soldier – with the line ..
” He needs bulletproof vests”
Hover your cursor over it (hoping it will tell you why he needs more than one bulletproof vest .. how many vests can you wear at once?)
and it tells you
“he needs bullet proof vests not an alternative voting system”.
Methinks this sounds rather desperate/sad/unimaginative to suggest that the reason we should say no to AV is because it will cost the country £250million. Is that really the best reason they can come up with ? Sounds like rather a bargain to spend a measly £250million to get a better voting system. That’s about £4 each isnt it ? Can’t buy a packet of cigarettes for that. Good grief .
If the main case for the “no” campaign is that it costs £4 per person to implement – then we (the yes campaign)- must be home and hosed. Afterall what are they saying – we should not have had a general election last May because it was too costly ?
Watch out for more public sector worker ads from No to AV along the same lines – well until somebody sensible realises they are a laughing stock and pulls them.
February 18th, 2011 at 8:45 am
It would save even more money if he wasn’t fighting pointless wars for the politicians.
February 18th, 2011 at 9:15 am
Or paying for the debt run up by those Labour politicians who now support the No campaign: Reid, Prescot etc
March 3rd, 2011 at 11:23 am
It’s an absolutely insane argument: if AV is going to cost £250,000,000, it’s a bargain and the campaign is a poor attempt to scare potential voters with figures that sound impressive because they are cited out of context.
It is 16% of what is spent on cat food in the UK per year.
£250 million represents a mere 0.65% of the 2010 Defence Budget
The figure represents an infinitesimal 0.033% of Government spending (at 2010 rates), always assuming that the costs are accurate (the No campaign have a vested interest in maximising potential costs), and had to be made in a single fiscal year.
(incidentally, the money would buy about 1 million bullet proof vests, 5 times the 194,440 active members of the UK armed forces including volunteer reserves)