Both No2AV and Yes to Fairer Votes have made new claims to back their respective causes as the AV referendum campaign enters its final week. 

While No2AV have claimed that the referendum is costing local councils dearly, Yes to Fairer Votes have published new research findings suggesting a strong link between safe seats and higher MP earnings from second jobs. 

Looking for some more detail and context to both these claims, Full Fact went in search of the facts.

Both the Express and the Financial Times were amongst the papers that covered the No2AV claim that council's were paying out for the 5 May referendum. 

“HOW £80M COST OF NICK CLEGG’S POLL IS HITTING PUBLIC SERVICES. THE £80 million bill for Nick Clegg’s AV referendum has had to be met by councils, despite the economic crisis, it was claimed yesterday. Figures show that the average council will have splashed out the equivalent of nearly 10 per cent of its budget ahead of Thursday’s historic vote.” The Express, 3 May 2011. 

“Campaigners against the alternative vote highlighted the £80 million cost of Thursday’s referendum on electoral reform as they sought to swing the public mood further against voting Yes to AV. The No campaign said the “wasted” money would have been better spent on public services or on cutting the deficit.” The Financial Times, 2 May 2011. 

No2AV have published the data that backs up this claim on their website, saying that: “Local authorities will be paying up to £80 million for Clegg’s AV referendum – money that could have been used to protect public services or cut the deficit. For the average council, the cost of the referendum amounts to nearly 10 per cent of their budget cuts.”

This analysis is based on official data from the latest funding settlement for councils, outlining the cuts they face this year, as well as official data on council funds for the referendum.  

However, they go on to acknowledge that their figures represent council expenditure that will be entirely reimbursed by central government. 

Therefore while they can fairly argue that central government could have decided to spend the money on public services, or to set it aside for tackling the deficit, it would not be accurate to argue that the referendum is leading to councils incurring costs that they would otherwise have spent on local public services. 

In reporting this story, the Express appear to have muddled the figures further. They claim that the referendum has seen the average council spend nearly 10 per cent of its entire budget on the referendum, when the figure actually refers to the referendum costs in relation to the size of cuts being required by DCLG.

It is also important to note that the official figures for funding allocated to councils represent the maximum figure that can be reclaimed by those councils. Whether or not all councils will need to claim the maximum amounts they have been allocated will determine the final overall cost of holding the AV referendum.  

While the Express has so far not reported on the Yes to Fairer Votes claim of a link between safe seats and higher second job earnings, the Financial Times did cover the story.

They  said: “The Yes to Fairer Votes campaign will today retaliate by arguing that the existing system has meant hundreds of safe seats, which rarely change hands. It will produce statistics suggesting that MPs in safe seats make twice as much from second jobs as those in marginals.” The Financial Times, 2 May 2011. 

The Yes to Fairer Votes website has further detail on this research. Using official data on MP's earnings beyond their official Westminster salaries, the research concludes that last year the average MP in a 'safe' seat (382 seats are classified as safe based on previous election results) earned an extra £11,000 last year, whereas the average MP in a 'marginal' seat earned an extra £6,500 last year. Total outside earnings amounted to £5.6 million.

We got in touch with Yes to Fairer Votes to ask for a full copy of the dataset used in reaching their headline figure. Using this data, the logarithmic graph below shows the relationship between the outside earnings of MP's last year and the safety of their seats. 

The headline figure used by Yes to Fairer Votes does show a significant difference between the earnings of MPs in safe seats and those in marginal seats. The graph above further visually shows the higher trend of outside earnings for MPs in safe seats. 

When we looked solely at MPs with outside earnings above £5,000 however, a more complex picture emerges. Of these MPs, average outside earnings for those in safe seats was £47,379.07 and for those in marginal seats was £34,522.69. Excluding the one MP with the anomalously high outside earning of £785,000 last year - who is in a safe seat - takes the average outside earning for MP's in safe seats down to £36,965.11. 

Looking solely at MPs with outside expenses above £5000 last year show the relationship between the outside earnings of MP's in safe and marginal seats can be much less clear cut, depending upon the criteria used.

While the headline figure does show overall higher average outside earnings for MPs in safe seats, it is noteworthy that under AV those MPs with a majority above 50 per cent would have remained in a safe seat. For example, Stephen Phillips MP, the highest outside earning MP with a £785,000 pay package on top of his Parliamentary salary last year, gained 51.6 per cent of the vote in 2010. 

Conclusion

Both No2AV and Yes to Fairer Votes claims have strong data at their heart. However the interpretation and reporting has been more mixed. 

The No2AV £80 million figure for the cost of the referendum is reflected in the official data, and while it can be claimed that this money could have been spent elsewhere, or not at all, it is important to be clear that this is a cost that is being picked-up by national government and not councils.

Yes to Fairer Votes were also correct in their headline figure comparing outside earnings of MPs last year with the safety of their seat. However, excluding certain anomalous results from their analysis can suggest that the correlation between the two may not be as strong as it first appears, and may rely upon the peculiar circumstances of a handful of MPs.