Exclusive: Yes to AV leaflets printed on ballot machines
Ed Howker 3:25pm
Chris Huhne’s decision to threaten the Prime Minister with legal action — as
I mentioned earlier — is particularly curious because he must be well-aware of the conflicts of
interest at work in the Yes campaign. After all, his partner, Carina Trimingham is a director of Yes! and the Electoral Reform Society. She has been involved in this referendum from the start. And
Mr Huhne must, therefore, know why Conservatives, and plenty of others, feel nervous about the relationships between the Electoral Reform Society who are running the Yes campaign and their business
arm, Electoral Reform Services, who are financing the Yes campaign.
I have just discovered, for example, that not only has Electoral Reform Services donated more than £1m to fund the Yes cause, not only do they have a financial interest in the outcome of the referendum, but they are profiting both from the administration of that referendum and even the campaign as well.
Documents seen by The Spectator clearly show that Electoral Reform Services will administer postal votes for the elections next month. Given their role last year, I suspect ERSL will print upwards of 1.9 million, but they won’t tell me precisely how many.
And, remarkably, ERSL have also been employed by the Yes campaign to print their campaign literature. Below is an example of one of their leaflets which clearly states that it was printed by “Electoral Reform Services, The Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London N8 0NW.”
Since the Electoral Reform Services only has one printing room in The Election Centre (it doesn't normally do leaflet printing), this means that the Yes leaflets will be coming out of the same printing press as the official ballots used in the election.
Precisely what the contract is worth I don’t know — they won’t tell me — though I note that the Yes campaign’s provisional budget stated that it would spend £2.2 millio on printing.
So, after all this scraping away, a rather grim picture is beginning to emerge of a vast referendum money-go-round with ERSL at the centre. This is a picture Carina Trimingham must know in even finer detail. She will also have seen notes from Mike Burdett, the ERSL Chairman, who wrote to the Yes campaigners last year to ask them to "keep their services in mind".
Chris Huhne’s objective seems to be quite the reverse, however. He doesn't want anyone to “consider” the role of Electoral Reform Services in this referendum because those who do end up asking the same question: is it appropriate for a profit-making business to finance a campaign without registering the donation, print that campaign’s leaflets, pay for its staffing and also administer the very election it seeks to influence? I’m sure Carina Trimingham knows the answer to that question too.
Previous
toco
April 25th, 2011 3:37pm Report this commentGrim news indeed for Chris the Buffoon-I trust George will demand an apology and an absolute withdrawal of his earlier misconceived remarks.Time for the blessed Vince to come to the rescue and resign.
Eleanor Sharman
April 25th, 2011 3:54pm Report this commentThe ERS have a printer? That they use for...printing things? About electoral reform? OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
And nobody mention the *huge* elephant in the room that is the No campaign's funding (i.e. based almost entirely on rather large donations from Conservative peers - who, incidentally, cannot vote.)
Wilhemina Bothwell
April 25th, 2011 4:08pm Report this commentWasn't Clegg, pre election last year, was over heard saying "Chris Huhne is no good. He has no emotional intelligence"? These days he could add the man is a serial betrayer.
Paul Griffiths
April 25th, 2011 4:09pm Report this commentI wonder if the author believes that the Yes campaign's leaflets will somehow contaminate the ballot papers though the magical effects of typography?
Charles Martel
April 25th, 2011 4:30pm Report this commentI'm probably in the Yes! camp (just to make life difficult for 'Call me Dave').
But its pretty clear there are some conflicts of interest here.
But it certainly explains why Huhne's brow is furrowed and his bottom lip is quivering like a jelly on a skateboard... looks like he has been given a nookie ban until after May 5th!
Poor poor dear, maybe he should take a copy of the Labour Manifesto to his private quarters and releave himself in private rather than treat us to this rather ugly public display.
annassasin
April 25th, 2011 4:34pm Report this commentWhat a wicked web we weave when we venture to deceive.
denis cooper
April 25th, 2011 4:44pm Report this comment"Yes to AV leaflets printed on ballot machines"
My God, the leaflets are being printed on BALLOT machines!
The same ones ERSL hope to sell for AV counts!
Er, no, because of course ERSL doesn't produce, sell, lease or otherwise supply such machines, and the leaflets are being printed on ... printing machines, which happen to be the same ones ERSL use for printing ballot papers when they've been awarded a contract to supply ballot papers, is that right?
So your point is?
Did you see this statement from the Electoral Commission?
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/news-and-media/news-releases/electoral-commission-media-centre/news-releases-referendums/electoral-commission-statement-on-electoral-reform-services-ltd
"Electoral Commission statement on Electoral Reform Services Ltd.
13 Apr 2011
In response to concerns raised about the role of Electoral Reform Services Ltd in the referendum on the UK Parliamentary voting system the Electoral Commission would like to reassure voters.
Jenny Watson, Chief Counting Officer at the referendum, said:
“We have put in place detailed and comprehensive arrangements for monitoring the performance of Counting Officers and their suppliers, and I have no reason to believe that there is any risk to the integrity of the administration of the postal voting process.
“Suppliers, including Electoral Reform Services Ltd, provide support to many Counting Officers. This is no different from the statutory elections and local referendums which have taken place for many years. As is always the case for elections only staff working for the independent statutory officer – Counting Officers – will handle returned postal votes for the referendum.
“Any organisation which supplies Counting Officers with ballot papers, postal voting packs or IT support is subject to normal public procurement, contractual and legal confidentiality requirements. There is no suggestion that these have been breached.”
As the regulator of party and election finance, the Commission does not comment on the financial or other interests of donors."
Rhoda Klapp
April 25th, 2011 4:46pm Report this commentI don't care. We all understand the question. Not many give a damn about the referendum, or the dodgy electoral tactics of both sides, except that they do what was hitherto considered impossible, that is make Chris Huhne look even more of a prat.
Stepney
April 25th, 2011 4:49pm Report this commentAs with most things - don't follow the smell, follow the money...
Huhne in high dudgeon attacking his own Prime Minister when in fact acting as (unpaid? who knows?), lobbyist for his partner's firm which stands to make millions...
Of course what this really does is expose Huhne's failings for a) fanning the flames of a scandal that needn't have been so widely publicised b) exposing himself to such richly deserved ridicule.
He really is useless isn't he? I bet she's chuffed with all the extra publicity too...
Verity
April 25th, 2011 5:10pm Report this comment"After all, his partner, Carina Trimingham ...".
Are they partners in a legal sense? Or are they just shacked up and may split next week or next month. This term "partner" has absolutely no meaning and should't be used in political context. If they are not legally partners, the word has all the ballast of a mayfly and shouldn't be employed in a political magazine.
If it doesn't have a legal stamp, Ms Trimgham is Wossname's girlfriend.
Chris
April 25th, 2011 5:42pm Report this commentAnd your, point about Tory peers, Eleanor, would be? That they're Tories? That they're peers? It can't be that they can't vote, since on your own estimation that's incidental. I'd say off with your head, too, but clearly it would make no difference to your intellectual capacity.
olly
April 25th, 2011 6:04pm Report this commentYour conspiracy theories are getting more hilarious by the minute - I can't wait for referendum day gets closer - Shock, horror, A yes canmpaign member was spotted looking at a voting paper printed by an ERS vote counting machine on election day. You couldn't make it up
Eleanor Sharman
April 25th, 2011 6:14pm Report this commentMy point, Chris, is simply that it is absurd to take the ad hominem argument to the Yes camp, when the 'cross-party' No campaign's funding is rather questionable. By questionable I mean highly undemocratic, considering the fact that peers are appointed and make political decisions, and the fact that the funding has come only from a very small, select group of individuals, whereas the Yes campaign has raised hundreds of thousands of pounds in small donations from people contributing online.
salieri
April 25th, 2011 6:24pm Report this commentVerity,
I'm trusting to memory but suspect that the reason for this reference to his "partner" is that he still has a wife - in the legal sense - but dumped her in favour of the aforesaid "partner", after a long marriage, about a month after the Election. The carefully calculated timing of this convenient schism received some comment at the time.
So, some 6 months later, did his brazen reconciliation of socialist principle with the ownership of 5 (or was it 8?) investment properties. No chicken, he, since he lost his umlaut.
This man is a seriously nasty piece of work.
Mark Scott
April 25th, 2011 7:36pm Report this commentWhat utter nonsense. There is absolutely no conflict of interest. ERS has always existed to promote electoral reform, and it's free to use the profits from its wholly-owned subsidiary ERSL to those ends.
See http://wp.me/p1eZAH-1v
Baron
April 25th, 2011 7:47pm Report this commentEd Howker, sir, you’ve missed another feature of the pro-AV campaign, malign and odious to an extreme, how could you.
The pro-AV leaflets will be delivered to our doorsteps by the same postmen as the official postal ballot papers, is that fair I ask you, should it not be outlawed immediately? You must shout, you must yell the loudest you can to have it stopped.
Listen up, you pro FPTP backers, in recent history of this island, the FPTP system produced a succession of Labour Governments that has nearly ruined us all, has certainly made us poorer. This alone should turn you to support the AV switch, I know it ain’t perfect, but it notches towards a system that would narrow the gap between those in governance and those paying for the governing decisions with which the majority of the country disagree.
So far, we’ve fiddled with institutions that didn’t need interfering with what with devolution, the High Court and stuff, here is an electoral system that delivers the dictatorship of the minority again and again, you against having it tweaked closer to sanity? You mad or what?
johna
April 25th, 2011 7:55pm Report this commentThis Huhne business is just a smoke screen to distract us from the big issue.
James Forsyth sums up the matter brilliantly in his article [p12,23/30 April]
Those of us who believe in proportional representation have no option but to vote Yes to the flawed system offered because a no vote will settle the status quo for a generation.
The adoption of the AV system will please noone except the Electoral Reform gang from whom I resigned long ago: they have their own agenda and finance.
One election with AV then people will start to talk positively.
My suggestion is that we have larger constituencies with three or four MPs so that the vast majority of voters can enjoy some degree of represention in the House of Commons.
and please use this idea to reduce the number of MPs: not to increase them
Frank Sutton
April 25th, 2011 8:05pm Report this commentRelations between ERS and the "yes" campaign may well be murky, but the fact - if it is a fact - that leaflets are printed on the same machines as ballot papers seems trivial.
There can't be enough demand to keep them busy with ballot papers all year round - who can afford to keep printing machines idle?
Andy Leeds
April 25th, 2011 9:39pm Report this commentIt is quite clear that the ERS, through its subsidiary should not be involved in any of the arrangements for the Referendum. It is called a conflict of interest. They have been huge contributors, along with the Rowntree Trusts to the Yes campaign. Where and from whom the money the Yes campaign are spending is a legitimate matter to examine. It would seem quite clear that the sources of the Yes money are far more dubious than the No campaigns funds. To say that the No campaign is funded by the Conservative Party is a complete and utter lie.
Ian Walker
April 25th, 2011 9:51pm Report this commentMore positive reasons to vote for First Past The Post, Ed?
No.
Even though I'm fully convinced by the arguments for a fairer electoral system, I still find that the list of people who don't want to change makes the most compelling argument to vote Yes!
TGF UKIP
April 25th, 2011 10:58pm Report this commentCharles Martel,not sure if a "Yes" vote would make life uncomfortable for Dave, quite the contrary in fact. Dave and his gang would like nothing better than AV as they would then be able to use that to seek to persuade the poor old Stupid Party that an even further tack towards "progressive" policies was essential for electoral reasons. That is why AV was so readily conceded to the LibDems a year ago and why Dave lied to the parliamentary party to ensure it was part of the coalition package.
As for Dave being in any sort of political peril in the event of a "Yes" vote, no chance. There will be an immediate media chorus form all his column courtiers, the Nelsons, Forsyths, Obornes, Moores etc that "there is no alternative", "Cameron born to rule", "very regrettable but the Tory Party must adapt and carry on with the progressive re-branding programme". Anything you read to the contrary over the next week or so from the courtiers is simply disinformation designed to divert and confuse.
Matt
April 26th, 2011 1:58am Report this commentTo everyone who is denying that there is anything wrong with someone acting as poacher, game keeper, police officer and magistrate... please DO try to see that even the appearance of bias and conflict of interest must be very carefully guarded against.
Scallywag
April 26th, 2011 7:38am Report this commentPerhaps Chris Huhne should start spelling his name 'Hoon'.
Remittance Man
April 26th, 2011 8:00am Report this commentEleanor,
So Conservative peers, amongst others, are donating funds to the No campaign; so what? It's in the open and they have no vested monetary interest.
The ERS donation on the other hand is neither of these. The connection between the "principled" campaigning organisation and the money making business is not clearly explained and the vested monetary interest is there.
However much you may dislike "toffs" what they are doing is in no way on a par with the morally corrupt shenanigens of the ERS.
Sir Everard Digby
April 26th, 2011 10:33am Report this commentEleanor Sharman - Do get your facts straight. The Yes campaign has raised 2.5 million in donations. Of that:
£117,798 has been raised in small donations from 2,708 donors, mostly online.
'Hundreds of thousands..in small donations'?
The balance has come from a very select group,one of whom has a business opportunity if the Yes campaign wins.
The No campaign also has donations from ASLEF and the GMB.....Tory Peers?
Lord Sainsbury - Tory Peer?
Charles Martel
April 26th, 2011 1:00pm Report this commentTGF UKIP
Maybe you are right, I really don't have any idea what Cameron actually believes in or what his cronies are upto.
But what I do know is that whether the Government is Blue, Red or even with a slash of yellow across it, we are still getting the same old same old 'liberal elite'.
I see no difference at all between Harriet Harmans 'so called' Labour faction and the 'so called' Conservative Cameroon clique... in fact I really don't think we have had any change of direction since the last election in any meaningful sense.
I believe that the Plurality voting system is superior, but when the choice is between dumb and dumber it is a zero sum game.
The reason why I believe Call me Dave will be in trouble is that it re-inforces the narrative that Dave is a loser, he had no mandate to offer the AV referendum without asking the party, he is not really a conservative etc etc... whether fair or not, it doesn't matter - it is damaging.
The Liberal chatterati can tell people how necessary it is, and how the Tories must soldier on with progressive change, but as the Tory votes continue to peel off even they will eventually see this 'Red Toryism' (blue trotskyism) as an electoral dead-end... the question is, will it be too late?
So, you may be right, but people like me have got literally nothing to lose, but I won't be crying if No wins thats for sure.
Back to top