An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored


9:10 am - August 19th 2010

by Guest    


      Share on Tumblr

Last week David Cameron attended a ‘PM Direct’ Q&A in Manchester. Ellie O’Hagan, in the audience, got to ask a question and mentioned a friend who had “a crush” on Cameron. But she also asked a serious question of Cameron which he ignored. She was subsequently misquoted in the press and ended up trying to correct online versions.

She has now written a letter to David Cameron. Here, we publish excerpts from the letter (linked at the end) by Ellie. It is an excellent piece of work.

Dear Prime Minister,

Thank you for visiting the North West on Tuesday, 10 August 2010 and taking time to listen to the concerns of the local electorate. You may remember me as the person who mentioned her parents and her friend who has a crush on you (for which I have had to apologise profusely since).

The PM Direct event was interesting, however I must admit to feeling dissatisfied with your response to my question. To that end, I would be grateful for a written answer at your earliest convenience. I include my question in full below:

As you stated at the PM Direct event in Manchester, deficit reduction is the most important issue facing the government at present.

A number of well-respected experts have been extremely condemning of your fiscal policy. Amongst others, these experts include the IMF, which stated in February, “Current conditions do not justify a significant rolling back of macroeconomic stimulus or financial policies in 2010”; the IFS, which said in April, “[Conserative fiscal policy] would not make a big difference to the government finances in the long term, [and is on the whole] less progressive, reducing the losses of households at the top of the income distribution proportionately more than those at the bottom,” and sixty economists who wrote an open letter to the Financial Times in February, in which they argued, “[Cuts more severe than those planned by New Labour would be] positively dangerous… If next year the government spent less and saved more than [New Labour plans to], this would not ‘make a sustainable recovery more likely’. The weight of evidence points in the opposite direction.” 1 2 3

I am sure you agree that it would be irresponsible of you to continue with this policy in the face of opposition from so many eminent voices without investigating their claims and establishing some evidence to the contrary. Have you commissioned any studies or research to that effect? Essentially, upon what hard evidence are you basing your policies?

* * * * * * * *

I must also address some points in the answer you gave me at the PM Direct event, as I am unsure of their validity and would appreciate some clarification:

1. You stated that the independent body, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), supports your fiscal policy.

However, I am sure you can understand that it is difficult to accept the testimony of a body that currently does not have a chairman and is not yet legally enshrined in law. Moreover, I cannot have complete faith in your claim that the OBR is completely independent when was set up by the Chancellor, is seconded by the Treasury, located in the Treasury’s offices, and directs its press inquiries to the Treasury.

2. You stated that the IMF supports your policy, however you were unclear as to whether you meant the deficit reduction in principle, or your government’s method of reducing the deficit.
If you were referring to the former, I would agree with you. However, if you meant the latter, I would be grateful for some evidence, such as a statement from the IMF. It is true that, in June, the IMF stated that “at face value, [the economic plans of the G20] appear to deliver strong, sustainable and balanced growth.”

Are you able to clarify the OBR’s position? Furthermore, do you have any support from bodies that are completely separate from the government, both in terms of their foundation and their professional activities?

3. At the PM Direct event, you seemed to suggest that one reason for your fiscal policy is the desire to avoid the economic difficulties faced by Greece.
I would appreciate further details as to why you believe this to be a possibility. I have looked into this issue myself, and it seems to me that the majority of relevant experts do not share your view. Indeed, in June, the Telegraph ran an article entitled: “David Cameron invites a ‘double-dip recession’ if he insists on Greek medicine for Britain’s deficit,” intended to debunk your comparison completely.

The article concludes: “There is zero chance that the UK will default on its debt. So each country needs a different treatment. The UK is demonstrably not Greece.”

The argument of the article would seem to be ratified by the BBC, which published data in May demonstrating that there is approximately a 52% chance of Greece being unable to pay back its debt, compared to the UK’s 6% chance of defaulting.

* * * * * * * *

Prime Minister, I must confess to being alarmed at the apparent dearth of evidence in support of the government’s austerity measures. I appreciate that the budget deficit must be reduced, but your chosen method of reduction seems to lack the overarching support of both financial institutions and individual experts. Admittedly I am not an economist, an analyst, or a policy-maker, so it is entirely possible that I have simply not been meticulous enough in my research.

If this is the case, please could you direct me to the evidence upon which you base your policies. Specifically, I would very much appreciate evidence from a source which is completely independent from the government, and is not a think-tank with known links to the Conservative Party, such as Policy Exchange or the Adam Smith Institute. The arguments against your fiscal policy are being made by authoritative, impartial experts, so I feel it is important that the arguments in favour carry a similar validity.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

Eleanor O’Hagan

[Read / download the full letter as a PDF]


Ellie has started a blog here: Questioning the Cuts

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Economy

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Neil Blakeman

I hardly think that selective evidenceis nailing someone. There are arguments on both sides as there has always been. The monetarist – keynesian argument has raged for decades and in the end it comes down to politics not economics. She is as guilty of this as is Cameron. At the moment it looks like the City, markets and the economy are not too alarmed at the pace of the redcution in the fiscal stimulus. Remember all that is planned is to reduce the deficit – not reduce the debt i.e. we will still be running an essentially keynesian policy for the next 5 years.

Cameron has very little evidence to back up his position, unfortunately, he is still convinving people. I think what Ellie is doing is important, but I’m not sure how much traction this can gain on its own. Good letter though.

Btw, Neil Blakeman I think you’ve misunderstood modern Keynnesianism. We are all monetarists now, and it is those arguing for stimulus who are also asking for monetary stimulus. The “monetarist – keynesian” manichean thing you are suggesting dosen’t exist.

Likewise, just because we’ll be running a deficit for the next 5 years, it doesn’t mean we’ll be stimulating the economy. By all accounts the state sector is acting as a drag on growth already.

Perhaps Eleanor doesn’t read the Sunday Times. That would account for the fact that she ignores the letter from leading economists supporting the current government’s policy:

… in order to be credible, the government’s goal should be to eliminate the structural current budget deficit over the course of a parliament, and there is a compelling case, all else being equal, for the first measures beginning to take effect in the 2010-11 fiscal year. The bulk of this fiscal consolidation should be borne by reductions in government spending…..

signed by:

Tim Besley, Sir Howard Davies, Charles Goodhart, Albert Marcet, Christopher Pissarides and Danny Quah, London School of Economics;
Meghnad Desai and Andrew Turnbull, House of Lords;
Orazio Attanasio and Costas Meghir, University College London;
Sir John Vickers, Oxford University;
John Muellbauer, Nuffield College, Oxford;
David Newbery and Hashem Pesaran, Cambridge University;
Ken Rogoff, Harvard University;
Thomas Sargent, New York University;
Anne Sibert, Birkbeck College, University of London;
Michael Wickens, University of York and Cardiff Business School;
Roger Bootle, Capital Economics;
Bridget Rosewell, GLA and Volterra Consulting

4. Andrew Lilico

If Ellie is really interested in evidence, might I suggest she consults the extensive reference lists we provide in papers such as this:
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/The_cost_of_inaction.pdf

or this

http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/pdfs/Controlling_Public_Spending_-_Nov_09.pdf

She will find there references to papers she might consider authoritative, such as the world’s leading authority on fiscal consolidations (Alesina) along with many other academics, and also papers from bodies such as the OECD, IMF, European Commission, and ECB.

On the more general point of whether it is in any sense true that all serious opinion opposes cutting spending at this stage, might I suggest you read this: http://conservativehome.blogs.com/centreright/2010/06/on-engaging-with-the-serious-debate.html

I have no brief to defend the Coalition, and indeed it should be clear from our writings that I have various minor disagreements with what is being done – e.g. I argued against raising VAT at all, and certainly did not favour raising it in January next year – but the ongoing attempt in certain quarters to contend that there is no evidential or theoretical support for a programme of spending cuts at this stage is, I am afraid, quite literally ridiculous.

@Flowerpower,

We’re at the “opinions differ” stage of debate. Basically arguing from authority gets us all no where. No amount of “my academic is better tha you academic” will really help. That is not a dig at you btw, just a statement about the state of the debate.

The idea that Cameron “has no choice” in the matter, as he has sometimes declared (no link for this, but I think people will be happy to accept this assertion), is dishonest.

@ 5 Left Outside

I agree that arguments from authority are pretty useless here, but I’m afraid that’s precisely Ellie’s problem. Essentially, she takes the PM to task for ignoring David Blanchflower and one or two other academic economists of a left wing persuasion and complains that he appears to have no supporters with equivalent credentials. Which is by no means true.

No amount of “my academic is better than you academic” will really help.

Which is why I forebore to say that I’d trust Tim Congdon and Andrew Lilico over the New Statesman/Guardian favoured economists any day.

Then … Deus ex machina…. up pops Lilico himself with links to all sorts of right thinking economists. Ellie now has a reading list and need trouble our busy PM no further.

I’ve currently got several pieces of research sitting on my desk showing empirically why massive stimulus/deficit spending doesn’t (US) and hasn’t worked (Japan). It essentially boils down to the Keynesian endpoint. Let me expain;

As debt mounts up through deficit spending interest costs act as a fiscal drag. In low debt economies this isn’t so much of a problem, but in high debt economies like our own (and you can’t just count government debt here) it is a massive issue. If nothing else, most of the stimulus tends to flow offshore to the real manufacturing nations (like China) anyway.

Simply put, growth (and tax revenues) gets outpaced by the rate of increase of debt interest, so more debt is issued to pay for that and try and increase growth yet again. Interest rates tend to be cut to very low levels (thanks to lack of growth) which gives governments more breathing room (and leaads to commentators saying they will never default) but that is totally missing the point. A government can limp by on stimulus/low interest rate life support for decades, at the cost of growth, devaluation of real assets and often a pensions timebomb. Do we really want that?

As a very rough example, using Labour 2010 budget numbers the interest payable on the national debt is due to increase by 30bn by 2015. Do please bear in mind that this included Labour’s promise to halve the deficit by then. Tax revenues run roughly at 35% of GDP, so to pay for the added interest costs we can estimate GDP needs to increase by about 90bn. So, with nominal GDP around 1500bn we can see that the economy needs to grow by about 6% over the next 4 years JUST TO PAY THE INTEREST on the new debt and keep the deficit unchanged…..but if Labour had it’s way we would STILL be running a 6% budget deficit……and i’ve assumed the current low interest rate environment – if rates go up at all the problem gets worse.

If you optimisitically compound a fairly healthy 2% growth rate for the next 4 years you still only get to about 8.5% total growth….so real growth would oonly be an anaemic 2.5% ov er 4 years.

As the national debt increases the numbers get even harder to manage the interest payments, so more debt piles up….etc….you can see where this goes. A debt spiral where interst payments consume the proceeds of any growth or new stimulus.

I’ve currently got several pieces of research sitting on my desk showing empirically why massive stimulus/deficit spending doesn’t (US) and hasn’t worked (Japan).

That won’t do. It’s quite easily arguable the stimulus in the US wasn’t large enough for the size of the economy. Japan is more complicated – the various attempts at stimulating the economy worked over short periods of time, but the broader issues were not resolved (lack of consumer confidence, too high a savings rate, bad banks) and so the economy always fell back eventually.

There are also examples where the stimulus worked just fine – China.

@8 – “There are also examples where the stimulus worked just fine – China.”

Aye, for about five minutes…

It’s quite easy to claim that “the stimulus worked” in China, when in fact it could hardly fail (to give the illusion of success). Government tells bank to lend: in the UK, they have all sorts of qualms over whether anyone will actually be able to pay it back. In China, they lend (how high?).

China is sitting on a huge property bubble just now; I’d be very surprised if prices hadn’t halved in a year or two.

According to the Chinese state media (!!): “A typical Beijing flat costs about 22 times average incomes in the city.”

If you bankrupt a country over the long term in order to make stimulus “work” in the short term, have you really achieved anything?

Hello

I have to be quick, as I’ve got to get back to the dole queue in a minute. No, I jest, I jest! I’m actually a corporate tax evader.

Right, here goes:

Firstly, I should probably correct a general misunderstanding. A lot of respondents seem to think I am arguing that the cuts are a bad idea. I’m not. I’m saying that the reasons the government has given in support of cuts are inconsistent and distorted. As a result, I asked Cameron the question directly, and his reply was disappointingly vague.

The purpose of my blog is (to quote from it): ‘to provide a more accurate picture of the level of cuts that are necessary.’ Why would I want to prevent cuts if they genuinely are the best thing for the country?

You will notice that my letter does not try to argue against spending cuts. It simply states that I was ‘dissatisfied’ with the answer Cameron gave me, and as a result was moved to reiterate my question. The ‘arguments against the cuts’ in my letter, as they have been described, are NOT arguments against the cuts at all. They are requests for clarification of the points the PM made in his original answer, as his justifications were not as watertight as he implied – which I try to demonstrate. At no point do I tell him the cuts are a bad idea; I simply ask for more evidence. And that’s my basic bloody right as a taxpayer, voter, and citizen.

Neil Blakeman

I think I’ve pretty much covered your point with the above. I was being deliberately selective with my evidence as I was responding to specific points the PM had made. I was not making an overarching argument against cuts, I was asking him for further clarification on the points he made.

Flower Power

Hmm clearly you have not read the letter in full, my blog in general, or the FT (which is linked on my blog, by the way). And that is why you ignore the fact that the letter I quoted and referenced from the FT is a response to the letter you’re talking about. So yes, of course I was aware of it. I also quote the Times elsewhere in my letter fyi. Again, I wasn’t using it as definitive evidence that CUTS ARE BAD. I was simply saying there are two sides to this coin, and asking if the government has investigated the evidence against the cuts and is satisfied that it does not outweigh the evidence in favour. I think the question I ask Cameron makes that pretty clear.

Incidentally, one of the sixty signatories of the letter to the FT is Joseph Stiglitz. The same Joseph Stiglitz that Cameron quoted in an argument in favour of the cuts during a speech he gave in January. That’s pretty inconsistent, don’t you think?

Also, this point: ‘Ellie now has a reading list and need trouble our busy PM no further.’

What an outrageous thing to say! It is my right, as it is yours and everyone’s right, to trouble all members of parliament. They represent the people and look out for the interests of the people, theoretically. By responding to my letter, the PM is doing his job, which he failed to do in Manchester.

Andrew Lilico
Wow, I’m debating with a nationally-renowned economist. I hope my mum reads this.

OK well I guess my main point in response to you would be to pull you up on this phrase: ‘I have no brief to defend the Coalition.’ Aren’t you a former (or current?) member of the Conservative Party? And don’t you write for Policy Exchange? As in, the Policy Exchange that was co-founded by Michael Gove? You might not have a direct brief to defend the coalition, but I’d say you have a vested interest and an obligation.

Also I’m not suggesting there ‘no evidential or theoretical support’ for the cuts. I’m saying the reasons the government are giving are not consistent.

I’m not going enter into a tit for tat here, basically because I’m at work so I haven’t got the time. In the press section of my blog, I invite people to put up news stories relating to the spending cuts. If you have any you’d like to post, please do. Also if you have any evidence that contradicts the arguments I put forward in my letter, please post them under the letter and I will put them up too.

Please don’t post anything by Policy Exchange though, or Adam Smith Institute et al. Sorry, it’s not censorship, it’s that the political leanings of those think-tanks are well-known and I’d rather keep it neutral. If you have papers written by Policy Exchange etc. quoting the IMF or whoever, just refer me to the original IMF document and I will put that up.

Also, I’m new to the whole blogging thing so if anyone has any formatting tips I’m all ears.

Finally thank you very much to Liberal Conspiracy for sharing the letter.

@10 Ellie

What a thoughtful, measured and clear response. More power to your elbow.. I hope you get a response which is the same, but somehow I’m not holding my breath!

@ 8 Sunny

China hasn’t (directly) stimulated. They’ve actually been tightening in the face of inlfation and rampant credit growth. The stimulus they have recieved is from trade balances – effectively they have been the main beneficiary of US and European stimulus packages. Yet another reason why stimulus packages don’t work in a global economy. The money simply flows offshore too more competative economies, as witnessed in the massive global trade imbalances we are currently seeing.

Japan is a great example. They’ve had little growth since 1989, their savings rate has collapsed, they have huge demographic issues and their debt interest payments are now reaching a problematic proportion of tax reciepts. They are saved only by their export led economy, massive UUSD reserves and low interest rates funded mostly domestically.

They are, as I mentioned above, approaching the Keynesian endpoint, which was the crux of the argument you ignored above.

As my UK example showed, running up deficits/debt for stimulus packages is pretty counter-productive – it suffocates long term growth. It is a major challenge for a mature economy to simply outgrow just the interest payments on the new debt they issue.

The only surefire way for a country to get out of sucha debt/deflation trap is to take the pain, devalue (either internally or externally), cut spending and regain competativeness. Running up debt stimulating in the vain hope that consumer demand will pick up and grow the economy, the Keynesian ideal, is nonsense in a global economy – Keynes theory relied on a closed economy, remember?

At work atm Tyler so I’ll be brief, but interest payments currently take up less of the budget than they did in the 90s or 80s, as has been pointed out at Duncan’s blog. I’ve yet to see you address that point. (If you have alread covered it please link, thnx)

Ellie, excellent and well measured response. Thank you.

Back from work tyler.

“Yet another reason why stimulus packages don’t work in a global economy. The money simply flows offshore too more competative economies, as witnessed in the massive global trade imbalances we are currently seeing.”

Not true, Stimuli are less effective when undertaken by a lone open economy, but it is not completely ineffective, at a minimum for example, you can’t import a haircut.

A coordinated stimulus is better than a lone stimulus is better than no stimulus.

Of course, you’ve just conceded that Fiscal Stimuli do work, but that they are difficult to direct. That is true, but you give way too much credence to the latter.

“They are, as I mentioned above, approaching the Keynesian endpoint, which was the crux of the argument you ignored above.”

But if they are approaching a Keynesian end point, why has this not shown up in the bond market? http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/japanese-bonds/

“The only surefire way for a country to get out of sucha debt/deflation trap is to take the pain, devalue (either internally or externally), cut spending and regain competativeness.”

But all the countries in the world cannot do this simultaneously, we need more demand.

“Running up debt stimulating in the vain hope that consumer demand will pick up and grow the economy, the Keynesian ideal, is nonsense in a global economy.”

Its not just consumption which Keynes advocated increasing, it was investment too. You are presenting a strawman.

“Keynes theory relied on a closed economy, remember?”

Most economics does, this is hardly a fait acompli.

Other things to consider.

A country which can issue its own currency never has to default on its debt. Whether it does or not is a moral and practical question, not an operational one. (To avoid any concern I am not advocating monetising printing money to pay down the debt).

Um.. thats about it.

Hello again everyone

I’m sure people from both sides of the argument will be interested in the response from Downing Stree when I receive it, so keep checking my blog, subscribe, or follow me on Twitter @MissEllieMae

Andrew Lilico

Just as an addendum to my earlier post…

I was going through some old links I’d shared a moment ago (yes I am single), and I came across the one below, which I found rather interesting:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-clegg-attacks-policy-exchange-for-offensive-and-underhand-briefing-5064.html

It’s an open letter from Nick Clegg to Neil O’Brien discussing a dossier circulated by Policy Exchange regarding Islam. Clegg criticises O’Brien for making accusations of ‘variable’ accuracy, adding that there is ‘a notable lack of evidence to support many of the claims.’

So I’m sorry that reading your post wasn’t the epiphanic moment you were hoping it would be.

Tyler: The only surefire way for a country to get out of sucha debt/deflation trap is to take the pain, devalue (either internally or externally), cut spending and regain competativeness.

Devaluing the currency (which I believe Japan has tried, but then the USA complains) still won’t help much, because Japan has tried export-led growth out of the stagnation but that didn’t work for long.

The stimulus did work, but it also dangerous to try and assume all kinds are the same. The Japanese have spent a lot of money on construction projects that just sustain an inflated and propped-up construction industry, or add little to infrastructure (lots of vanity projects). On the other hand, the cash-for-clunkers stimulus in the US and the UK has done a lot to boost the industries and protect jobs.

Also, Japanese firms aren’t that uncompetitive, except perhaps they’re facing issues with competition from South Korea and China they can do little about macro-economically. the chances of monetary stimulation is zero. I don’t see any evidence, other than praying, what you’re basing your assumptions on. Japanese companies were highly competitive (the car/electronic ones anyway) after the crash. Still didn’t pull the country out of recession though.

Lastly – Japan has enough savings to sustain the debt. The debt isn’t the problem. Finding a source of growth is the problem. I have a feeling it may become the first (in an increasing number of) developed countries stuck at zero growth thanks to a mixture of facing an older population, developing countries snapping at their heels and consumption driven growth bottoming out.

@14 Left outside

Firstly, lets get this straight – Krugman is a politician, not an economist.

Interest payments take up less now because rates are at an all time low, and because QE has depressed long end yields. Low rates to try and spur growth whilst massive stimulus is going on in the background is a good sign an economy is straightjacketed. Somehow though, despite rates being near all time lows, our interest payments are still going to double (to about 70bn) by 2015. Thats the education and defence budgets combined. It’s all well and good looking at 2008/9 data (pre Brown’s massive deficit) but budget deficts lag – look at the data in a few years time, or the predictions.

Oh yes, I know your next argument is that we aren’t stimulating at all……yet somehow we are spending 12% more per annum than GDP! Deficits ARE a stimulus if you believe in Keynes.

Stimulus packages can work short term, but at massive cost – sub par long term growth. Personally I don’t think it’s worth it. They are also increadibly wasteful

You are correct in saying that a country which has its own currency can never default on its debt in the traditional sense. In practical terms though, a major devaluation through inflation or the like counts as exactly the same thing.

Keynes viewed demand as the overriding factor – investment would be pointless unless it spurred increased demand.

@ 16 Sunny.

I simply don’t know where to start. Everything you say is demonstrably wrong. I wish I could post bloomberg charts here.

I don’t think any stimulus package in the world has worked. If you strip out the inventories component of GDP, growth has been flat or negative in the G7 since Q4 2008.

Japanese firms are only profit making with USDJPY above about 92. It is currently at 85. the BOJ and Japanese government are currently looking at yet more easing to trying and weaken the Yen to get the economy back on a level footing. Seriously, just read the FT once in a while. They are what is colloquially known as “shitting it.” You’d have thought that after 20+ years of experience they’d have learnt, but thanks to some muppet with a 30s copy of Keynes theories they’re stuck and have been since 1989.

Debt IS the problem in Japan. Just because people are willing to fund continued issuance doesn’t mean it isn’t an issue. The problem is not the outright levels of debt, its the effect ever increasing interest payments have on growth. There is no more owerful force in the world than compund interest.

Japanese stimulus has taken many different forms over the years. They’ve tried almost everything, from captial investment to QE. Nothing has worked. After the example I gave, and the real life experiences of Japan and now the US, I’d just love to hear how you think these stimulus packages create growth. It’s easy to show numerically how they subsume it though – as I have done above.

“Firstly, lets get this straight – Krugman is a politician, not an economist. ”

In the context of your post, you seem to be implying he doesn’t understand economics. Which is just hillarious.

“Firstly, lets get this straight – Krugman is a politician, not an economist. ”

I am tempted to stop reading at that, in fact I am writing this comment before reading the rest of what you have written.

You cannot write off Paul Krugman as an economist unless you are a moron. No sensible economist does so. He has written a paper which you will love, really, you’ll love it, on the soviet union and the east asian mirace http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/myth.html He is a preminent economist on trade. You really are an ideologue.

Not a good start to a comment.

I will try to come back to the body of your comment when I’m not at work.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  2. Edward Bonilla

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  3. James Brown

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  4. sunny hundal

    An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  5. Dale Cox

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o < very sensible questions, wonder what reply?

  6. winston k moss

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  7. sajj

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  8. vcgriffin

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  9. Gavin Lambert

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  10. yorkierosie

    An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DVDzhQe via @libcon

  11. ThinkingMuslim

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  12. Matt Leys

    This is ACE RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  13. Rezina

    Brilliant! RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  14. Political Animal

    RT @sunny_hundal An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  15. Liam McKee

    RT @politic_animal: RT @sunny_hundal An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she n …

  16. Melissa Nicole Harry

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  17. gibbzer

    RT @mattleys: This is ACE RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  18. Lisa

    RT @RezinaChowdhury: Brilliant! RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  19. Hussein

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  20. Philip M

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  21. sallymumbycroft

    Brilliant RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  22. Paul Stephens

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  23. Sarah thoms

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  24. Chris Paul

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  25. Vincent Holland-Keen

    RT @gibbzer: RT @mattleys: RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o #fb

  26. tracy thomson

    Encouraging: "@sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!"

  27. gary robinson

    Awesome RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  28. Matt Lodder

    " An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored: Last week David Cameron attended a ‘PM Direct’ Q… http://bit.ly/bjmPcn "

  29. Joe Cassels

    RT @mattleys: This is ACE RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  30. Gregory McNeill

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  31. David Baines

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  32. Tim Cookson

    RT @sunny_hundal An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  33. oy_vey_baby

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  34. Simon

    RT @yorkierosie: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/DVDzhQe via @libcon

  35. Nick Parker

    Over to you, Cameron RT@mattleys @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  36. Brian Paget

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  37. Therese

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  38. Laura

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  39. Rose Darling

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  40. Mark Brooks

    Here's a great piece on the PM, its well written and makes good points but won't make any fucking difference http://t.co/WIhklDh via @libcon

  41. Nick Hyde

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  42. Rachel Clements

    RT @Rose_Darling: RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  43. alan mills

    rt @sunny_hundal

    An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  44. Andrew Holland

    RT @alanmills405: rt @sunny_hundal

    An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she …

  45. xamaxzebi

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  46. Margaret Nelson

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  47. Richard Bradley

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  48. Clint Pearson

    RT @mattleys: This is ACE RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  49. Jude Shirres

    RT @sunny_hundal: An open letter to Cameron – from PM Direct audience member he ignored: http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!

  50. fifeman58

    Questioning the cuts: a rather excellent open letter to #Cameron http://bit.ly/9Eco3Y via @libcon #ConDem #Osborne #tory

  51. UNISON East Midlands

    An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://is.gd/eoEOb

  52. Daisy Slade

    Very interesting open letter to the PM on the current cuts http://j.mp/97nRfD (via @lostinnorfolk )

  53. Rachel Forward

    “@alanmills405: rt @sunny_hundal

    An open letter to Cameron – http://bit.ly/ayJM1o – she nails him!” now her, I'd vote for 😉

  54. oy_vey_baby

    @beefqueen “@libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o”

  55. beefqueen

    RT @oy_vey_baby: @beefqueen “@libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o”

  56. Pucci Dellanno

    RT @libcon: An open letter to Cameron, from an audience member he ignored http://bit.ly/ayJM1o

  57. Richard Leeming

    So mr Cameron will you answer this letter asking you to justify your economic policy? http://bit.ly/cuQwou





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.