Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Fiasco-hit election cost public an 'astounding' £39m

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 14 April 2008
By KATRINE BUSSEY
THE bill for last year's elections is more than double the previous one, with the cost reaching almost £40 million, an SNP MSP said yesterday.
Keith Brown said that in total, the 2007 Holyrood and local government elections had cost £39.26 million. He branded that "astounding", adding it was more than twice the total for the 2003 elections, which cost £17.15 million. Mr Brown said almost £9 million of the money spent on the 2007 polls had gone to DRS, the company which provided the electronic counting machines.

There were 146,099 parliamentary ballot papers rejected in last May's Holyrood vote, and a report into the fiasco later found that voters were treated as an "afterthought". Mr Brown, the MSP for Ochil, said: "The amount spent on the last elections was astounding, and it is only now finally coming to light."

He claimed Douglas Alexander, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, and the previous Scottish Executive, had "tripped themselves up".





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 13 April 2008 9:17 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Holyrood Elections
 
1

Angus Ogg,

13/04/2008 22:16:18
Dear Douglas....

1. Will DRS be allowed to tender for another election job ?

2. Will you be asking for a refund on ar least part of the £9,000,000 of our money you gave to DRS ?

3. Have you learnt anything from this mess ?

4. What about the voters that your, and DRS' screwup disenfranchised ?
2

,

14/04/2008 00:42:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

FS,

Stirling 14/04/2008 01:20:10
The Scottish Parliament should be in charge of its own elections - plain and simple
4

Boggle fey the Bog,

14/04/2008 01:22:34
Colin R,BEarsden 14/04/2008 00:42:55

Aye but nae 'donations' larger that £950 please
5

Alberto.,

14/04/2008 07:29:58
#1. Angus Ogg.

Possible answers.

1.We are already in negotiation for other contracts because of their expertise!!

2.Most unllikely in view of the foregoing, we would not want to upset any developments for the future or our close reltationship - that's not the Political game!

3. I /We are not paid to learn, uniquely we are paid for 'knowing' as you can see!

4. I am most extremely sorry, but sometimes things can go wrong - or in political terms - 'TOUGH!'





6

Guga II,

Rockall 14/04/2008 11:24:00
We should be in charge of our own elections, just as we should be in charge of our own country.

As for that numpty Alexander, he should be made to pay for the additional cost of the last elections. He can get his sister, The Mouth of the South, to pass on some of her dodgy donations to help him out. Presumably if she gave it to him in a series of payments of less than £1,000, he wouldn't have to declare it.
7

McX,

14/04/2008 12:08:22
£19.46 for every valid vote counted. They'd have been better off having the worlds largest BBQ and deciding the winners over a tug of war game. I fear Jackie the Hutt as anchor would have been unmovable.
8

Saoghal Beag,

14/04/2008 20:27:53
9 Jackie I agree, but what is more sad is while this thread is struggling into double figures the tittle tattle nmae calling and insults on the Mrs Salmond thread are in the hundreds.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.