- This topic has 30 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 8 years ago by GrahamS.
-
£113,255,271
-
yosemitepaulFull MemberPosted 8 years ago
It is estimated that the General Election of 2010 cost £113,255,271.
I kind of suspect the Election of 2015 will be considerably more.
Considering we are almost certainly going to get a hung Parliament and perhaps another election (presumably costing another enormous sum) before the end of the year.
I have to ask; Is it worth it?
I doubt wether anything will really change within the U.K.
What could we have spent such an incredible sum of money on: Hospitals, Schools, Social Services? The list would be endless.camo16Free MemberPosted 8 years agoI fear that the alternative (no elections) would probably be worse. Especially if the Tories were in when we cancelled expensive elections.
cynic-alFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWhat is tghat Spend on?
Everything…campaining, polls?
your alternative Paul?
piemonsterFull MemberPosted 8 years agoWell, NHS England has a budget of nearly 100 billion quids.
jonbaFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI have to ask; Is it worth it?
Yes.
That actually seems pretty cheap considering, even if it is only the mechanics of voting and counting. It is a bargain if it includes campaigning which I suspect it does not.
PeterPoddyFree MemberPosted 8 years agoIt’d be a lot better value if everyone went out and voted. And then we’d also get a fairer, more accurate result.
ac282Full MemberPosted 8 years agoIt’s less than £3 per voter. I think the country can afford that every 5 years.
yosemitepaulFull MemberPosted 8 years agoCynic-Al. I don’t know if I have an alternative. Though apparently this is the sum used to administer the process. (The Independent).
I was more commenting on the huge cost of the process.
Perhaps we should pay twice as much to get rid of the current incumbents!kudos100Free MemberPosted 8 years agoCheap compared to the US, where it is something like 5 billion dollars.
OnzadogFree MemberPosted 8 years agoWell, my £3 has been east d. I did one of those online questionnaires about who to vote for. It came out at 64% for one of the main parties and 62% for the other. Confirms what I thought, there’s little or no difference between them.
I still don’t know who to vote for. Maybe I should link this to the “none of the above” thread.
julianwilsonFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI would love to see another ‘cost’ expressed as “party donations for last 12 months divided by votes cast for the party”. Also/otherwise is there a way of measuring the cost of campaigning? I know that the
gagging lawtransparency of lobbying act capped what charities, comapnies, churches and so on were allowed to spend on lobbying in the last year before an election, but not whether it meaures or monitors what parties actually standing for election could spend. It would be interesting to see if there is a ‘cost per vote’ you could meaningfully measure.cynic-alFree MemberPosted 8 years agohuge cost
It just isn’t a huge cost though, unless significant savings can be identified.
Classic example of someone having a moan wihtout giving it any thought it seems to me.
camo16Free MemberPosted 8 years agoInternet voting, anyone?
I mean, clicking costs nothing, right?
Then, at least we could lose the 19th century vote boxes and officials with gravy stains in their jumpers.
NorthwindFull MemberPosted 8 years agoIt’ll certainly be more expensive- the Tories slipped through an under-the-radar change in the law allowing more campaign spending, against the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, to allow them to outspend Labour.
Which is pretty much the most Tory thing ever tbh.
andytherocketeerFull MemberPosted 8 years agointernet voting, anyone?
I mean, clicking costs nothing, right?
Have you seen the costs that governments (of either colour) can clock up when they tinker with IT ?
HM Govt. could spend that kind of money just on a few windows licences to keep Messrs Gates and Ballmer sweet.
CaptJonFree MemberPosted 8 years ago£113m or £17m less than Premier League clubs spent on transfers in January.
T1000Free MemberPosted 8 years agoNot much with that small amount of cash.
One small hospital or 5-6 secondary schools add an extra form of entry to 40 primary schools
robdobFree MemberPosted 8 years agoMy church has hosted the local elections a bit back and is doing the general election count this year. The security and checking and and double checking is something amazing – it costs a lot because it’s complicated and rigorously run.
There’s a lot of countries in this world where people would be glad to pay £3 each for a fair and honest election process like we have.
It’s a bargain IMHO.
thestabiliserFree MemberPosted 8 years agoThey should do it like x-factor, vote as may times as you like on text for £1 a pop then they could fund…simon cowell, a bit, for the format.
epicycloFull MemberPosted 8 years agoyosemitepaul – Member
…I doubt wether anything will really change within the U.K…Oh yes it will… 🙂
maccruiskeenFull MemberPosted 8 years agoI doubt wether anything will really change within the U.K.
Are you suggesting that nothing has changed in the last 5 years
TiRedFull MemberPosted 8 years agoThere’s a lot of countries in this world where people would be glad to pay £3 each for a fair and honest election process like we have.
This. I’d happily pay £3 to cast my democratic vote.
mikewsmithFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI have to ask; Is it worth it?
I doubt wether anything will really change within the U.K.then
Perhaps we should pay twice as much to get rid of the current incumbents!
BigDummyFree MemberPosted 8 years agoThis is easily the densest and most craven political post I have read in the UK during my adult life.
I’d honestly rather see “Vote the UKIP to keep Katie Hopkins in the the UK”.
ernie_lynchFree MemberPosted 8 years agoConsidering we are almost certainly going to get a hung Parliament and perhaps another election (presumably costing another enormous sum) before the end of the year.
I have to ask; Is it worth it?Are you suggesting “let’s not bother” or do you want to rely on the good old fashion show of hands which I think always works fine ?
Although a more accurate cost cutting way might be to get everyone who wants a Tory government to flush their toilets at the same precise time on a given day and to measure the drop in water levels at the water reservoirs. The next day at the same precise time everyone who wants a Labour government flushes their toilets and the party which drops the water level the most at the reservoir is declared the winner and gets to form the government. The fact that the cistern has to fill up before it can be flushed again stops people voting twice.
.
BigDummy – Member
This is easily the densest and most craven political post I have read in the UK during my adult life.
I’d honestly rather see “Vote the UKIP to keep Katie Hopkins in the the UK”.
Your post BigDummy is without any shred of doubt the most over the top and exaggerated comment I have ever read, anywhere, in my entire life. And probably ever will.
D0NKFull MemberPosted 8 years agoIt’d be a lot better value if everyone went out and voted. And then we’d also get a fairer, more accurate result.
I reckon what we’d actually have is chaos at voting stations. Pretty sure they aren’t geared up for a 100% turnout. There was trouble at a few places last time including burnage which apparently will have extra security on the doors this time.
but yes it would be nice if everyone voted.
julianwilsonFree MemberPosted 8 years agoI did read somewhere on facebook that if we had 100% turnout, its estimated that the election results in terms of seats won per party would be near enough the same. I always imagined the little and/or protest parties would do better and many marginals would swing away from conservative, but apparently not.
GrahamSFull MemberPosted 8 years agoInternet voting, anyone?
I mean, clicking costs nothing, right?The big problem there is how can you ensure that the voter is not being pressured or coerced into voting for a particular party?
e.g. a domineering partner leaning over their shoulder saying “click there, we always vote for them don’t we dear?”
At least with the current system you can make a free choice in private.
The topic ‘£113,255,271’ is closed to new replies.
