24/02/2011

The true cost of AV.

In the last week (since the bill got Royal Ascent) the campaigns for the Referendum on First Past The Post (FPTP) Vs. the Alternative Vote (AV) voting systems has really stepped up a pace.
I've covered why I believe our current voting system should be upgraded to AV here, and I don't really want to cover old ground now.

What I do however want to mention is the cynical lies being used by the No2AV campaign.
It started when they announced that introducing AV would cost the UK Taxpayer £250m, and then used that as the basis for their advertising campaign.



Apart from the issue with these sickening adverts suggesting that the choice is between AV and other essential things (it isn't), the major problem is that the sums done to find the £250m quotation don't add up. the No campaign's own website break down the costs as being:

£82 Million - for the referendum itself
£9 Million - for voter education (ahead of the referendum)
£130 Million - for the introduction of electronic voting machines
£26 Million - for voter education (at the next elections)
Total Cost - £247 Million

And here's the problem with this valuation. It's Bullshit

Firstly, £82 Million for the referendum. This figure is massively exaggerated, simply because it's based on the cost of a referendum alone. but May 5th isn't just a referendum, there are local council elections happening around the country that day as well as elections in the devolved nations, the cost of adding a referendum to this is going to be minimal. the polling stations are already going to be open, the officers are already going to be present, the only actual extra cost to the existing elections is going to come from the paper and the time added to counting the election ballots.

Secondly, even if this £82 Million figure was correct. Whichever system people vote for it's going to cost that for the referendum itself. And yet you aren't seeing the No campaign asking people to boycott the ballot to save the money, people voting No is going to cost as much as people voting Yes. which brings me onto my third point...

£130 Million for the introduction of electronic voting machines, this is the biggest fabrication by the No campaign yet, there simply isn't going to be an introduction of electronic voting machines. Australia has managed to use AV in its elections since 1918 without the introduction of electronic voting machines, but the No campaign seems to assume the British electorate is too dumb to vote in order of preference without the help of machines. And even though the government and the Electoral Commission (the impartial organisation that organises the UK's elections and referendums) have both said there are no plans to introduce the machines, the No campaign is still using it's £250 Million figure as a reason to vote no.

Lastly, £26 Million in voter education in preparation for the next election is also massively inflated, currently your ballot paper lists candidates and asks you to mark an X in the box of the candidate you want to win. Simply changing that text to ask voters to put a 1 in the box of their preferred candidate and 2 in the box of their next preference and so on, will not cost £26 Million.

Unfortunately this £250 Million cost claim is just one of the No campaigns many attacks on the referendum and AV which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, but I guess when you're trying to defend an electoral system which no longer works properly and therefore can't defend it, all you can do is attack the proposed change.
Prepare to see much more of this negative campaigning from No2AV. Meanwhile, Yes to Fairer Votes (the Pro-AV campaign) has published this video of reasons to vote yes.


I know which side I'm on, can you see past No2AV's lies??
Vote YES in May

Shep

19/02/2011

Review: Radiohead - The King of Limbs

Radiohead
The King of Limbs
Released 18th February 2011 on XL Records

Radiohead are becoming renowned for their unconventional way of releasing music, their last album 'In Rainbows' was released on a 'pay what you want' basis, and in the early stages of recording for this album they released the song 'These Are My Twisted Words' for free with DIY artwork.

The King of Limbs' was announced only last week as having a February 19th release date, only for people to wake up on the 18th and find the full thing available for download.

Released 4 years later and named after a thousand year old Oak Tree near the recording studio where they recorded the critically acclaimed 'In Rainbows', can 'The King of Limbs' live up to it?

Opener 'Bloom' starts off well with a crackling piano melody, but soon ends up losing it and sounding a bit muddled up, the second song 'Morning Mr Magpie' does little to remedy this lacklustre start, fortunately third song 'Little by Little' is something of a gem which feels much more like 'In Rainbows' territory, the slow soft voice of Thom Yorke singing "Little by Little" over a fast paced percussion background. Fourth song 'Feral' again feels like an unorganised string of ideas meshed together with very little in the way of melody.

Luckily, at this half-way stage the album starts to turn around into a more focused effort. Fifth song, and first single 'Lotus Flower' is a more traditionally structured slow burner which adds layers of electronic and percussion rhythm over Yorkes soft vocals. Song six, 'Codex' is undoubtedly the best song in this collection, a soft piano melody and strings carry the music while Yorke sings "Jump off the end / Into a clear lake / No one around", the sense of sadness and the build up in the instruments around it can best be compared to 'All I Need' from In Rainbows.

Seventh song 'Give Up The Ghost' starts with bird song, and continues in an acoustic like manner throughout, some eerie atmospheric keyboard noises compliment the acoustic guitar and restrained use of percussion.
Eighth and final song 'Separator' is the perfect way to close this album (and has spurned a whole host of conspiracy theories due to the lyrics "If you think this is over then you're wrong"), it's the most uplifting song on the album and showcases Radiohead at their best.

This album is a difficult one to summarise, it's obviously a departure from the faster paced 'In Rainbows' into a body of work that is slower and much more atmospheric, this itself may be the problem with it, on first listen, to be totally honest I wasn't too impressed, but the more I've listened the more I've enjoyed it. The decision to move the guitar based sounds into the background and make the electronic atmospheric sounds more prominent could put off some Radiohead fans and is unlikely to win any others over.
All in all this album is a slow starter which improves as you listen through it, and although it's obviously no OK Computer, is still a great body of work which most fans will love. To me it feels like a slower more atmospheric sibling to In Rainbows, and given that In Rainbows is my seconds favourite album that is no bad thing.


Check Out:
Little by Little
Lotus Flower
Codex
Separator

Avoid:
Bloom
Morning Mr Magpie