Three reasons why it’s in Labour interests to support vote reform


10:45 am - July 6th 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The date for a referendum on vote reform was barely announced yesterday and people on the left started spitting blood at each other. I don’t want to get into a debate about whether AV is better than the status quo; instead I’ll focus on why supporting AV would be strategically good for the Labour Party.

I’m not surprised by John Prescott’s reaction: “This is a poisonous package and Labour must fight against every single part of it.” — and I disagree for various reasons, the first of which is that the AV referendum is not part of any package.

It will stand on its own while the other pieces of legislation will be pushed through by Cameron and Clegg despite Labour and Tory-backbench opposition. Vote reform is the only area Labour will have a significant influence on.

And here are three reasons to support AV:

1) If the Labour hierarchy actively campaigns for AV it will attract support from Libdem voters, who will be repelled by loud Tory voices that want to keep the status quo. I keep having to stress this: Labour’s primary opposition is the Conservative party not the Libdems.

Getting those Libdem voters on side is key if the Labour party is to win an election again.

2) Forget those predictions that AV will lose Labour lots of seats: they are based on electoral projections that don’t take into account tactical voting, and a swing-o-meter which is defunct. Instead there are two reasons why Labour might actually benefit under AV.

  • More people identify with the Labour party than the Conservatives, even now. Which means more people are likely to give the Labour party their second preference than the Conservatives.
  • Twice as many Libdems are likely to vote Labour as their second preference than Conservative, despite the current coalition. The base still remains to the left of Nick Clegg. That base has to be cultivated (campaigning for AV would be a good start!) and it will reap benefits in the future. [I accept the polling is moving the other way, but I put this down to the honeymoon. If that trend persists in 2 years time then there's a problem]

3) Constant Labour oppositionalism at everything looks very unprincipled, especially since all the five Labour leadership candidates committed to AV reform. If the party now does a big u-turn in the hope of splitting the coalition – it will simply backfire. Libdems will lick their wounds, condemn Labour as untrustworthy, and cement themselves with the Conservatives.

In other words Labour will help create an anti-Labour majority in this country, which won’t bode well under FPTP or AV.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Our democracy ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Hang on. You don’t want to get into a debate over whether AV is better than the status quo? Surely that’s the important debate that has to be had. Once we decide if AV is better than the status quo, then we can support it or not.

As a matter of principle, I will support something if I think it is the right thing to do, not as a strategic ploy to win votes.

2. Facthunter

“Twice as many Libdems are likely to vote Labour as their second preference than Conservative, despite the current coalition.”

Source?

Both post-election polls (Times-Populus at the weekend and C4-YouGov last night) that asked Lib Dem voters for their second preference found that they now broke towards the Tories instead.

“Twice as many Libdems are likely to vote Labour as their second preference than Conservative,”

Where are you getting this figure from? This was true in pre-election polling, but there’s been a slight Conservative bias in the Lib Dem second preferences in what post-election polling there has been. (Presumably because a lot of the people who were unsure whether to vote Lib Dem or Labour, and eventually decided Lib Dem, have already switched their first preferences to Labour)

At the moment it looks like the combination of effects will increase the Lib Dem seats, taking them roughly evenly from Labour and Conservatives. (based on UNS and Uniform Transfers, which might be rubbish but it’s the best the current polling allows for) – still, even in that situation, it won’t exactly harm Labour.

JSlayer/1: Once we decide if AV is better than the status quo, then we can support it or not.

There are plenty of other places where that debate is already going on, though. And yes, it’s obviously better than the status quo… the only voting system that wouldn’t be (and it would at least be roughly proportional, so even that’s not completely clear) is Vote From Hat.

I’m always a little nervy about ‘what’s in it for us?’ articles on electoral reform – there is a legitimate debate over what kind of parliament we want, how small a party should have national representation, et al., but such conversations from a party’s point of view seem grubby, shallow. They miss the point of electoral reform – fairness and democratic legitimacy.

That said, I welcome Sunny’s article as it seems such tribal self interest is all that some Labourites seem to understand (I’m a member myself, so I consider it a particularly unedifying spectacle). And I cannot fault his logic, particularly points 1) and 3).

The many voters who chose the Lib Dems as a lefty alternative to Labour (however misguided you may think them – for my part, I think it depends on your candidate…) are scarcely going to be attracted to a Labour party attacking them as ‘Guardian-reading’ tossers. Even if we are to believe Andy Burnham is right that voting reform isn’t getting them worked up down the Dog & Duck (grossly patronising though that position is), the working class vote *does not care*. So why not regain the support and trust of the middle class lefties pushed away by Iraq, inequality, civil liberties, etc. – they are a quick win. They are also the very voters Ed Miliband recently identified in his poll and are part of the 4m votes lost 1997-2005 (why the obsessive focus on ‘only’ the 900k lost in 2010?)

Twice as many Libdems are likely to vote Labour as their second preference than Conservative, despite the current coalition.

As others have pointed out, this is simply no longer true. On latest polling, 38% of Lib Dems would choose the Tories as their second vote (up from 27 before the election) and 33% would choose Labour (down from 42). I’m afraid that Labour’s hysterical shrieking at the Liberal Democrats has already taken its toll.

“I’m afraid that Labour’s hysterical shrieking at the Liberal Democrats has already taken its toll.”

What after 2 months of govt You take those polls seriously?

VAT has not hit home yet, and all those nice lib Dem voters in the public sector have not had their working life turned to shit, yet. Lets see, how many Lib Dems love the tories in 2 years time.

Well, I know my Labour MP will support it. He’s only been campaigning for electoral reform for longer than the labour party has had a mandate for it.

It’ll be interesting to see how many side with Prescott on this – hopefully few, but who knows how deeply the bitterness runs.

I wonder if minds will get a little more concentrated on the left as time goes on. I keep thinking about the stark choice that is going to face us on the ballot paper. All the clever justifications in the world for not supporting AV won’t register on it. Either you’re a defender of the status quo, or you’re one of the apathetic millions who doesn’t care enough to vote at all, OR you’re in favour of AV. Now, clearly I’m not, particularly. But if those are our choices, surely there’s no contest for a Labour supporter who is at all pro-reform, just as there isn’t for me.

There is, I suppose, the fourth option of spoilt ballot papers. But that hasn’t registered as a successful publicity strategy even in national general elections with months of internet excitability stoking it up, so it’s unlikely to be a goer this time either.

‘Heat blood to boiling point’

http://www.labourlist.org/darrell-goodliffe-price-reform-alternative-vote

Not only witlessly conflatory (we should vote against AV because of the cuts; we should vote against AV in the referendum to show our disgust at the boundary review that will already have happened) but also having a go at the coalition for its cynical ‘super majority’ gambit (just in case it’s not clear, the 66% plus one rule for disolving parliament is actually, of course, a *good* thing in a fixed term context).

But a good article if you want a clue of just how barefacedly dumb many of those in the Labour camp are when it comes to a) attacking the coalition; b) understanding constitutional matters; c) adopting principled positions that might win the support of the former Lib Dem voters that will be needed to wrest power from the Tories.

‘dissolving’ rather – much like my capacity to spell.

Tactically this article makes sense – Labour voters are the key group supporters of a change to AV need to win over, and clearly if you win over more Labour activists that will help you reach Labour voters in the medium-term.

However, to those of us who remember what the Labour Party is for, AV is a bad thing for the Labour Party. It would change the rationale of how we campaign.

Currently much of campaigning is about turning out your core vote. Much of Labour’s core vote is difficult to turn out, but it’s also difficult to get swing voters to change their minds, so we still put lots of effort into turning out our core vote. Conversely, it would be much easier to source second preferences from people who are overwhelmingly likely to vote. With limited resources, that distracts from engagement with the largely working class voters in our core vote, and will have a bigger impact on losing touch with our historical purpose than Blairism ever had. It could change us from a party that still has a connection to the working class to a Lib-Dem Mark II party. I don’t want that (and actually, I think it is bad for voters too because it offers them less choice).

12. Richard P

It’s been said already, but Lib Dem voters now give Tories their seconds prefs. See http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2739 , which says “Lib Dems now break in favour of the Conservatives rather than Labour, though not by very much (38% to 33%).”

13. Peter Ward

Sunny

I think all the constitutional measures will be brought together in one piece of legislation. This, along with the proposed date of the referendum, could lead to problems for the legislation for the AV referendum in the Commons and Lords. If the boundary changes, 55% dissolution, etc were decoupled from the AV referendum then I think it would be more likely to negotiate parliament more easily.

As for AV itself. I broadly support it but not if, at the parliamentary stage, all this gerrymandering legislation is attached.

Hang on. You don’t want to get into a debate over whether AV is better than the status quo?

I think that is an important but a separate debate. One that should be had, but it’s very circular. I think there is a clear argument for AV in any case.

cim, facthunter:
Where are you getting this figure from? This was true in pre-election polling, but there’s been a slight Conservative bias in the Lib Dem second preferences in what post-election polling there has been.

Sure, but we’re still in the honeymoon period. That will revert back to its natural position. If we’re still on the same numbers in two years time then I’ll start to worry.

jesusjohn – excellent point, well made.

Alix: But if those are our choices, surely there’s no contest for a Labour supporter who is at all pro-reform, just as there isn’t for me.

You’d think so wouldn’t you. But unfortunately pragmatism isn’t a trait widely found on the left.

timf:
Currently much of campaigning is about turning out your core vote

but much of your normal positioning is about winning over independent voters since the core vote doesn’t go away.

You can work on getting the vote out even under AV.

Peter:
If the boundary changes, 55% dissolution, etc were decoupled from the AV referendum then I think it would be more likely to negotiate parliament more easily.

It is! Nick Clegg explicitly said the referendum would just be about AV, not about constituency sizes or reducing MP numbers.

It’s misleading to claim otherwise.

16. Flowerpower

Sally @ 6

VAT has not hit home yet

And it probably isn’t going to. The last time VAT went up by the same amount appears to have made no difference. You probably weren’t even aware of it. You don’t seem to have ever mentioned it here.

Regardless of what opinion polls show at this moment, I think it’s a pretty safe bet that Labour will gain more second place votes than the Tories by the time the next election comes along.

Currently, the Tory leadership is the most liberal (small l) it’s been for decades, if not ever. Conversely, Labour is suffering from an ideology vacuum after its years in power and seems to be indiscriminately attacking coalition statements and policies regardless of their merit. And even under these circumstances the second place votes are predicted to be about even.

By the time the next election comes along, assuming Labour manage to pick a decent leader, I can’t imagine people will see things in quite the same light.

18. Mike Killingworth

Generally, I think that polls which talk about hypotheticals like who Liberal voters would give their second preference to in an imaginary election under a voting system we may never have are of little worth unless they divide into those whose identification with the Liberal Democrat Party is strong, tepid or weak. I doubt the sample size is robust enough for that.

[11] A very thoughtful contribution, Tim. Are you saying that a programme which will appeal to Labour’s core vote and values will also be a programme which will repel swing voters? How big do you reckon Labour’s “core” vote is? Is there much of it outside the larger conurbations? Is it “left-wing” or “populist” or, if both, in what proportion? Do we want an electoral mechanism that will encourage the maintenance of a two-party system because one of them can be elected on a leftish platform or one that will sustain a half-dozen or even dozen parties because the left-wing vote as such is only 15-20% and therefore cannot obtain power? Most socialist theory would imply the latter: for the masses to want a socialist programme there has to be a crisis of capitalism. The events of recent years, of course, have shown that that is merely a necessary, not a sufficient condition. No one knows what a sufficient condition looks like. Maybe there isn’t one.

16 W

16

arrogant brown shirt translated into English……

“It is only the poor who will notice so who cares and the rich don’t even pay the tax so who cares.”

Be interesting to see if all those lazy farmers and petrol protesters are happy with more rises in price. Seeing as the right made such a thing about stealth taxes.

Oh sorry I forgot , they only complain when it is a Labour govt. Silly me.

#18 First off, I used the term “core vote” in a slightly lazy way according to the rough sense most people give it, because it simplified my argument.

Parts of a programme which appeals to core voters may appeal to swing voters as well. In fact that’s necessary, because it’s too difficult & possibly impossible to elect a Labour government from core voters alone. Nonetheless, I would rather we had a system which encouraged Labour to get the maximum number of its core voters out that was possible, rather than one which encouraged it to look for second preferences from other voters more.

And in terms of what system would I like – I would prefer a system which mirrors the class divide, rather than one which specifically encourages lots of parties and coalitions, yes. One of the reasons I’m in the Labour Party rather than a small, further-left organisation is that the LP is able to engage with pretty much the whole working class, not just a small socialist-inclined section of it. I don’t accept that a crisis of capitalism is the only thing that can win people over to socialist ideas. I think politics can do that to some extent. The establishment and success of the NHS has been a powerful argument for socialism, for example.

#14

I don’t deny what you say about positioning. But I can’t see that it would be any better under AV. And it’s not that you can’t work on getting the vote out under AV, it’s that it becomes less efficient than gaining second preferences.

Silly Sally indeed. As has been pointed out in a multitude of places, the poor don’t suffer from a VAT rise as much as those slightly above the poverty line do. Dropping the VAT rate to 15% made no difference to their quality of life, and no real difference to anyone else’s quality of life either. The idea that it stimulated the economy by any great amount is a bit absurd. The same logic applies to this rise to 20%. It’s only really noticeable on purchases of big things by consumers – cars, say.

Besides which, the poor /are/ labour’s core vote – especially poor women. For some reason poor men don’t mind voting conservative as much as poor women do. In the context of trying to work out who would get who’s second-preference votes, that’s all reasonably relevant. Trying to work out what anyone would do is difficult – I’d expect to see a boost in support to the smaller parties (EDL, BNP, Greens, UKIP, SNP), as the tactical voters express their preferences (which is what we want, after all); first-choice liberals will probably second-choice labour or conservative reasonably equally (depending on whether they’re social or market liberals), hardly any first-choice conservatives will second-choice labour, and a significant number of first-choice labour will second-choice lib dems.

But it is depressing that such concerns come to the fore in a discussion that /should/ be about what’s best for the voter. I don’t care which party the system /fairly/ discriminates against, and I’m extremely unconvinced that any aspect of the proposed changes will unfairly discriminate against any one party, in any case.

23. Scotch Dan

I suspect by the time that the VAT rise comes into play that Labour will have got their act together under their new leader. I genuinely think that Labour will win more seats in the next election than the Tories. After 5 years of unpopular (regardless of how necessary) cuts it’s bound to happen. We’ll probably get a good idea of how things are going for Labour in the Scottish and Welsh elections next May where I’m predicting a drubbing for the Lib Dems.

On the subject of fixed terms, isn’t 5 years too far between an election? I think 4 years between elections is more suitable.

24. Facthunter

“Peter:
If the boundary changes, 55% dissolution, etc were decoupled from the AV referendum then I think it would be more likely to negotiate parliament more easily.

It is! Nick Clegg explicitly said the referendum would just be about AV, not about constituency sizes or reducing MP numbers.

It’s misleading to claim otherwise.”

Peter is obviously talking about the legislation (hence “negotiate parliament” rather than “win the referendum”) which Clegg made incredibly clear (and has done so on numerous occasions) was going to combine AV and the constituency changes in one measure. He’s pretty much said that they are two sides of the same coin in terms of the electoral system, though I’d have to dig out the exact quote now.

I suspect that a lot of Labour people would oppose the Bill but support a Yes vote in the referendum, the issue is just whether there might be a large enough Tory rebellion at Third Reading to defeat the whole thing.

Presumably though the idea of conflating the issues is that it wins over the Tories – and if it stops Labour supporting the Bill, then that’s a tactical bonus for Clegg even if it’s bad news for the wider Yes campaign.

“But it is depressing that such concerns come to the fore in a discussion that /should/ be about what’s best for the voter. I don’t care which party the system /fairly/ discriminates against, and I’m extremely unconvinced that any aspect of the proposed changes will unfairly discriminate against any one party, in any case.”

Then you are a fool.

No, I just haven’t seen any evidence that constituency sizes of around 75,000 will actually disadvantage labour in absolute terms, rather than simply removing their current advantages. Yes, it benefits the tories relatively speaking, yes, that’s bad for labour, but no, it’s not a bad thing for the electorate. Non-registered voters (who do tend to be poorer than registered voters) are an issue, but an entirely separate issue given that voter registration rates are unlikely to change much unless we introduce compulsory voting backed by fines or some such.

Characterising entirely legitimate boundary changes as gerrymandering is, however, extremely foolish – and means that if an actual case of gerrymandering comes about, then people are less likely to pay rightful attention to a serious abuse of power because people like Jack Straw will have been crying wolf all along. Labour knows exactly what real gerrymandering looks like, so they should be well-placed to challenge individual cases if and when they come to light. There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with changing the boundaries or reducing the number of MPs (although reducing the number of ministers in line with the number of MPs might have been a good call, I’m of two minds about that).

I know you hate the tories with every fibre of your being, and that can get in the way of rationality a bit, bu you could at least try to think with long-term self-interest in mind. Obviously, getting a vague conception of fairness in there too would be great, but I appreciate it’s not something everyone can do – especially politicians (of every stripe!)

27. Chaise Guevara

Word of advice, Nick, from a total hypocrite who’ll ignore it himself: three well thought-out, intelligent paragraphs stating the argument for your views are probably going to be wasted on someone who can only muster up an insult in response (and sometimes, when she’s feeling up to it, a straw man or two).

28. Peter Ward

Sunny

I think we may talking at cross purposes.

What I am referring to is the bill that will introduce the AV referendum will also include all the other constitutional reforms lumped in with it. I cannot see how the tories will let a bill that delivers an AV referendum without boundaries being redrawn go through. I was referring to the legislative process in relation to the referendum not the referendum itself.

If the set up is as follows:

1. A bill with all the boundary redrawing, 66% rule as it now is and the proposed AV referendum. I would oppose that bill.

2. Seperate bills that bring each of those as seperate bits of legislation. Fine support AV referendum, vote against everything else.

From what I can gather the legislative process is the former, not the latter and as a consequence will struggle to get through parliament if enough labour, nationalists and tory back benchers vote against it or amend it to death.

If the Lib Dems want AV then force the referendum through with is own piece of legislation. That is a referendum bill without the other constitutional strings attached. I am afraid thats not on the table.

As a matter of principle, I will support something if I think it is the right thing to do, not as a strategic ploy to win votes.

AV makes it possible to vote directly against a party, and should tend to empower moderates who can sweep up second preference votes.

Which strike me as being a good thing.

I expect that most of the opposition will come from the Tory right and the Labour left. Come the referendum, I expect to see a rather unholy alliance between them.

Sunny/14: Sure, but we’re still in the honeymoon period. That will revert back to its natural position. If we’re still on the same numbers in two years time then I’ll start to worry.

What is the natural polling position for an election with a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition government?

It’s possible that many of the Lib Dems who would support Labour have already left and are now giving Labour first preferences. My simplistic projection for the English seats from the recent YouGov poll is that the Lib Dems will lose a lot of seats to Labour and Conservative, based on UNS, but keep about a third of those lost with AV, and the current Lab/Con split in LD 2nd prefs won’t make much difference except in a couple of ultra-marginal seats.

@ 28 – Peter, why are you against the 66% rule? Are you against fixed term parliaments? If so, I get it, albeit I would disagree. If not, then this seems a perfectly sensible measure.

Word of advice, Nick, from a total hypocrite who’ll ignore it himself: three well thought-out, intelligent paragraphs stating the argument for your views are probably going to be wasted on someone who can only muster up an insult in response (and sometimes, when she’s feeling up to it, a straw man or two).

I agree with this. I think comments should focus on developing arguments in a persuasive manner, not just attacking other people for disagreeing with you – the latter being Sally’s modus operandi.

@31 I think one key point that perhaps the coalition could’ve made – and perhaps couldn’t have been made given the general level of awareness of constitutional rules – is that the fixed term parliament and the 66% rule *takes away* from the PM the power to dissolve parliament and puts it in the hands of a majority of the House of Commons. Previously the PM could call an election whenever he/she wanted to, now the parliament is fixed and can only be dissolved in unlikely circumstances. I think it is a massively positive step forward to remove this power from the PM, who is not directly elected, and to put it in the hands of 66% of elected representatives.

Perhaps there is an ideological objection to fixed term parliaments on the part of Labour and its supporters.

Just seen this quote from Burnham: “”Let’s not get obsessed by this issue, because it really is irrelevant. It’s a kind of fringe pursuit for Guardian-reading classes.””

Jeebers. Does he not know how annoyed even “ordinary” voters are at the way politicians fail to serve their (voters’) interests? Ensuring each MP has to win a majority of their constituency’s support is a big step towards repairing the MP-voter relationship. Even people “down the Dog and duck” (what a patronising twat Burnham is) care about politics sometimes, and want MPs to be more representative.

Much as I enjoy expounding thoughtfully, at great length, when it comes to Sally I do tend to do it mostly as a form of gentle ridicule. I’m pretty sure that doesn’t make me a bad person ;).

I had opportunity to talk with my sister and my mother t’other day, who are probably in the “dog ‘n duck” crowd, and I had a go at explaining the whole idea of alternative vote to them. They’re deeply cynical about politics and politicians and neither of them voted; changing the voting system to AV made no impression on their views in that regard, and wouldn’t have made them more likely to vote – or even to get on the electoral register.

I think the man has a half-point. Politics and electoral reform isn’t the natural preserve of the disinterested-in-but-angry-about-politics, and switching to AV won’t result in a large change in public confidence towards their MPs. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing, though, or that it’s impossible to /get/ them interested.

Hmm. The disaffected crowd might indeed be too disaffected for a change to the voting system to make much difference, but whatever difference can be made should be made. It’s tough to convince people who don’t vote – but turnout was up this year, and there are still more people who vote than do not.

#32

“Perhaps there is an ideological objection to fixed term parliaments on the part of Labour and its supporters.”

It’s not an issue that really comes up in LP meetings, but certainly I have an ideological objection to fixed term parliaments.

Apart from anything else, the problem it seeks to solve doesn’t really seem like a problem. If the public think a PM has called an election to his or her own party’s narrow advantage, they can punish that party. I prefer to trust the electorate.

It’s funny really, because it’s me here that’s calling for less legislation and less rules whereas a lot of the liberals want bolt-ons to our constitution.

37. Chaise Guevara

“I think the man has a half-point. Politics and electoral reform isn’t the natural preserve of the disinterested-in-but-angry-about-politics, and switching to AV won’t result in a large change in public confidence towards their MPs. That doesn’t mean it’s not worth pursuing, though, or that it’s impossible to /get/ them interested.”

I think it’ll at least have a subliminal effect if it gets adopted. Anything that helps to the prevent the “everyone around here votes for x, so why bother voting for y?” issue might help reduce the impression that voting is pointless, albeit over a longish period of time. And if (if!) it helps break the Labour/Tory stranglehold, that could have a huge effect on the “they’re all the same” attitude, both because they won’t be so similar under that system, and because there’ll be genuine potential for change.

38. Richard P

I agree AV is a good thing, that it hugely reduces the need for tactical voting etc, but I doubt it will help break the Con/Lab stranglehold. The main example of AV in use is Australia. Its House of Representatives has 83 Labour members, 55 Liberal, 10 National, and only 2 other. The Liberals and Nationals are allied to each other (and have been, with one very brief interruption, for the best part of a century) and constantly talk about possible merger, even though you’d think that under AV they’d feel no need.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  2. John West

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  3. Hannah Claytor

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  4. Natalie G

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  5. John West

    Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx << @antoniabance – worth considering…

  6. Neil Hughes

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  7. GuyAitchison

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  8. Luke Homer

    RT @libcon Three reasons why it’s in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/aLXTf6

  9. P. S. Wong

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  10. Keith Death

    RT @libcon: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  11. sunny hundal

    Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  12. Sam Connacher

    RT @sunny_hundal: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  13. Anthony Painter

    RT @sunny_hundal: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx < Agree with every word of this.

  14. John West

    RT @anthonypainter: RT @sunny_hundal: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx < Agree with every word of this.

  15. andrew

    Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform …: Liberal Conspiracy · Home · Westminster Uni… http://bit.ly/dexYHe

  16. Vote No To AV

    .@LibCon states 'Twice as many LDs are likely to vote Labour as their second preference' even though polling disagrees http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  17. HAM

    Interesting RT @sunny_hundal: Three reasons why it's in Labour interests to support vote reform http://bit.ly/bZR2Dx

  18. Is supporting AV in Labour’s interest? «

    [...] supporting AV in Labour’s interest? 6 07 2010 Sunny Hundal thinks it is however, nobody will be surprised to learn I disagree. It is worth mentioning as an [...]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.