Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA


10:40 am - February 23rd 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

The campaign against the Alternative Vote are running a highly disingenuous ad campaign in local newspapers which claims it will cost £250m. The implication is also that babies will die if people vote Yes.

And so I’ve made an official complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority – as Stephen Baxter says, it is beyond parody. because of it is insulting nature. My complaint is below.

This is the ad that ran in the Birmingham Mail on Monday 21st Feb (h-t @caddymation)

My complaint: the claims made in this ad campaign – that £250m would be saved if voters voted no in the upcoming referendum – is simply not true.

1. Some of the money included in the £250m cost is going to be spent anyway, since it includes the cost of the referendum itself.

2. The total £250m amount also includes a projection of £130m that would be saved if it was spent on expensive electronic counting systems that were liable to failure. But there are no plans to count the votes cast in the referendum by electronic counting machines – they are still likely to be counted by hand. And furthermore, even if the money were to be spent, it would relate to voting generally rather than just specifically to voting No in the referendum.

3. It is simply not provable that if £250m was not spent, it would automatically go on nurses or defence spending. There is no proof provided for this claim, since the clear implication from the ad in question is that it would otherwise be spent on hospitals and nurses.

4. The implication of the ad is that the opportunity cost of having a referendum is that babies in hospital will die. This is a highly offensive claim backed up by no proof whatsoever.

5. As part of their justification for the £250m claim, the campaign claims that the ‘cost of voter education’ with the new AV system will be £26 million. This is a wild exaggeration and based on the cost of the adoption of a different system, the Single Transferable Vote for Scottish Council elections, that is much more complex than AV.

Can the ASA adjudicate on this issue? I don’t know: my assumption is that it does not get involved in matters regarding advertising by political parties. But in this case we have an independent body throwing money to stop vote reform.

Either way, the campaign being run by the No2AV camp is very dishonest.

(thanks to Sunder Katwala and Will Straw for the points.)

    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 ,Media

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


Waste of time unfortunately. The referendum adverts are outside the ASA’s remit. They suggest contacting the Electoral Commission but what I’ve read on their website suggests they won’t get involved either.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Regulation-Explained/What-we-cover/Complaints-outside-remit.aspx

2. Chaise Guevara

“Can the ASA adjudicate on this issue?”

It can’t.

http://www.asa.org.uk/Resource-Centre/Hot-Topics/Political-ads.aspx

So basically, we have an organization that bans adverts featuring a woman dressed as a nun kissing a guy dressed as a priest because it’s offensive to permanently outraged idiots, but that can do sweet FA about people telling demonstrable lies in a direct bid to disrupt the democratic process.

Whoop-de-fucking-do.

3. the a&e charge nurse

The voting reform process will cost around £250m yet the NHS reform is priced at £1.7 BILLION (some say this figure may well be nearer £3 billion).

From the coalition’s perspective it seems some reforms are more equal (and certainly far more expensive) than others?

4. Chaise Guevara

Yeah, the ASA isn’t involved in political advertising. So we have an organization that bans ad advert showing a woman dressed as a nun kissing a guy dressed as a priest because it offends permanently outraged idiots, but can’t do a thing when people directly lie to the electorate in a deliberate attempt to disrupt a democratic process.

Good on you for complaining. I made my complaint to the ASA yesterday. It only took a few minutes so I would encourage others to do so.

Aside from the unsubstantiated claims, this advert is in very bad taste and as a new father I found it deeply offensive.

That a group should try to influence the way I vote by showing disturbing images which bear no relation to referendum is wholly wrong.

6. Chaise Guevara

@ 2

“The voting reform process will cost around £250m”

Don’t believe it.

The £250m figure only stands if bringing in AV means bringing in electronic voting, which it doesn’t, and if FPTP winning means we magically get all the money back that was spent on the referendum, which it wouldn’t.

It is, in fact, a bald-faced lie: AV TAKES UR MONEYZ & EETS UR BABYS!

7. Chaise Guevara

Anyone got an MP who could ask Cameron to condemn this propoganda at PMQs? I doubt mine will, he’s coalition.

I could write to Diane Abbott.

9. Bill Kristol-Balls

Well intentioned Sunny but a bit pointless inmho.

This is typical of how some on the right choose to campaign – both here and in America – by putting out falsehoods that can rationally be proved wrong but do a good job of sowing doubt and creating outrage.

Only way to win is play them at their own game –

– Have an ad that strongly links FPTP to the expenses scandal.

– Another showing BNP skinheads and asking why they are strong supporters of FPTP

And so on….

Hmm, it seems we’re in a blindspot where their advertising is not covered by commercial advertising law or political party electoral law. So they can literally straight-up lie, as they seem to have chosen to do.

I wrote to the ASA a few days back, they said its is for the Electoral Commission:

—- response follows —-

Dear Paul

Thank you for your e-mail.

Further to your query, I can confirm that advertising for the referendum on changing from FPTP to AV would be considered as political advertising under the Code and therefore not covered by the ASA’s remit.

This is the case whichever political party/campaign groups are behind an ad.

In this instance I would recommend contacting the Electoral Commission

I hope this information helps out.

Kind regards

Matt Wilson

Enquiries
Advertising Standards Authority

That’s interesting. I complained yesterday and didn’t get a reply at all, but my complaint was more about the distressing imagery rather than the unsubstantiated claims.

This despicably cynical advert dovetails very nicely with the right’s current economic narrative. As the nodding dogs and memorisers of conventional wisdom never cease to remind us, the country is bankrupt, maxed out on its credit card, we all have to tighten our belts, etc etc. So how can we possibly afford to fritter away millions of pounds on frivolities like electoral reform? Isn’t that, in a very real and non-demented sense, just like murdering babies?

This is yet another reason why its so important not just to challenge this moral and economic illiteracy, but to treat it with the contempt it deserves. Britain is a rich country. The problem is not a lack of resources but the fact that those resources are hoarded by the mega-rich, with the protection of their political lickspittals.

If this advert represents the right taking a sudden interest in social welfare then that is to be welcomed. One of the best ways to increase social welfare is to make politics more democratic, so that government is more likely to respond to the needs of the public.

Actually the brown shirt scum who created this ad don’t want the baby to have a cardiac facility either. But they won’t tell you that.

Always funny to see the global elites pretending they care for the people.

Democracy or babies? Which shall I choose?

Perhaps the next poster will be something more tasteful and restrained like a variant on the famous National Lampoon cover http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Natlamp73.jpg

As I understand it, the electoral comission has limited powers over this stuff – they are more about making sure the campaigns don’t overspend and about ensuring the questionn is fair etc, rather than dealing with lies. The assumption is if one party lies, the other party can simply counter it.

Well said, Sunny.

The 250m probably is wrong but why, in the interest of the fairness the yes campaign continually brags itself to be all about, can’t your campaign give the figure it will cost?

Even a 10m spend is to much, especially at a time of severe cuts and job losses which is what most of the NO campaign are worried about.

With regards to dishonesty I also see the stupidity of the BNP argument is raised in comments below but the yes campaign allows the BNP vote and gives them a say on others. That, if anything, helps them and in all likelihood will encourage ‘the protest vote’ your campaign sometimes claims it will stop.
While the system will see them fall at the preference count, they should be defeated before they get to the ballot box, as they were in the last election under the nasty, evil FPTP and not seen as acceptable and a price worth paying as long as the preference vote comes our way.

Sticking with dishonesty the yes campaign, despite it’s smoke screens and reasons for it to be supported which change on a weekly basis, is all about party economics and your belief that campaigns can not be fought and won in what you class as safe seats.

Campaigns are lost because the political elite can’t provide reason to electorate to vote for them, there are unfortunately a considerable number of Labour MP’s now out of their role because we failed to give the electorate sufficient reason to vote for us whereas the then opposition didn’t. Wake up to that fact, give people reason to vote for us and they will, don’t and, as we found in the last election, they won’t.

That will still be the case with AV, unless you believe loyalty to party always comes before anything which is something that stopped long ago and like it or not is the reason why turn out and voting percentages have dropped.

Haven’t the #No2AV campaign breached these regulations?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/41/section/39

Please ignore that last comment. My error.

This ad makes me more likely to vote No2AV because the baby is so cute.

22. Chaise Guevara

@ Andy

“While the system will see them fall at the preference count, they [the BNP] should be defeated before they get to the ballot box, as they were in the last election under the nasty, evil FPTP and not seen as acceptable and a price worth paying as long as the preference vote comes our way.”

What are you on about? How did FPTP defeat the BNP “before they got to the ballot box” in a way AV wouldn’t? If that had happened, nobody would have voted BNP.

I love the way you think people voting for the party they support is a “price”, btw. Very democratic of you.

“Sticking with dishonesty the yes campaign, despite it’s smoke screens and reasons for it to be supported which change on a weekly basis, is all about party economics and your belief that campaigns can not be fought and won in what you class as safe seats.”

LOL. Easy to dismiss the underdog’s attempt to make things fairer as “party economics” when the current party economic favour a party you support, isn’t it?

“Campaigns are lost because the political elite can’t provide reason to electorate to vote for them”

…and because the non-elite can’t get seats in parliament thanks to FPTP.

Please go away and THINK about the system you’re criticising before making comments.

I guess this poster was thought out by some of Cameron’s team. hard to see how any socialist could really support it – particularly as the figures show that it is the Tories who will suffer with a “Yes” vote.

“Even a 10m spend is to much, especially at a time of severe cuts and job losses which is what most of the NO campaign are worried about.”

Fuck it, let’s just cancel elections. Democracy is too expensive, even if it is only £2m per year on average, or a cost of 7p per tax payer a year. Jesus, I can’t believe we’re even contemplating it. At least if we don’t scrap democracy, can we at least cap the turnout at 60%, I don’t know if we can afford to lay on the extra people/time needed to count the extra votes at this rate!

tl:dr I think you’re a moron for even making the above statement.

Steven Baxter (AKA Anton Vowl) has a good piece about this laughable advert here: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/steven-baxter/2011/02/voting-system-baby-gets

I thought this was a storm in a teacup in all honesty.

I just can’t get animated about AV. Seems like lefty infighting at its most futile and pedantic.

Remember this from October ’09?

Chris Dillow’s article at LibCon: ‘Boris Johnson will kill children’

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2009/10/14/boris-johnson-will-kill-children/

This isn’t surprising but I’m still shocked they would be that disingenuous and we all know who this is targeted at don’t we? The apathetic class who know little of AV if anything and are always the first to respond to scare tactics irrationally instead of going to research the subject more.

Very GOP like.

Will write to my MP but he’s a Tory in a safe set in a wealthy area…..so wont hold my breath.

I agree with the above that we need to play them at their own game but not stoop so mentally low but make target the ads to the same people instead of the blaming chattering classes who will vote how they want anyway!

29. Chaise Guevara

@ 23 Lee

LOL. Well put.

It’s worth writing to your MP. Even if they’re against eletoral reform they can surely see this advert is in extremely bad taste and can be very offensive to some, especially parents of poorly children.

Oh yeah, was going to add that this is both from the right and left who part of the No campaign.

Margaret Beckett who is the chair, leader or whatever, would’ve had to okay this advert before it went out.

Its a campaign run by Matthew Elliot – so its going to be dishonest and sensationalist.

Did you know yes to AV people are currently shooting people in Libya?

Why are you fussed? It’s a stupid and crap campaign, which is giving the initiative to the Yes side.

Perhaps the No campaign actually attacking the key issues (fairness – that can be won by no quite easily (a poster saying ‘one man, one vote?’ and showing someone having eight choices for example…)) and the fact this is a very centralising party politics supporting device) would be worth worrying about. At the moment, my preferred side of the argument appears to have decided that it is going to appeal to the electorate circa 1987…

Arguing that a democratic change would cost a minute proportion of state spending is bloody stupid – so rather than making it sound like this is an important point that you want to stop being broadcast/displayed (which is how I suspect the campaign of complaints will come across – and do not be surprised if Mr Elliott and co are collecting up the number of complaints), just laugh it off and point out how stupid it all is. Or perhaps launch a small counter-campaign asking ‘Is there a price on democracy now?’. With any luck that might force the No campaign to actually engage in argument and not stupid (and outdated) political gestures. The only way this can work to the Yes campaign’s disadvantage is if it looks like the No campaign have a point remember…

@12 ‘my complaint was more about the distressing imagery’

What distressing imagery? I have photos like this of my children when they were new-born. They aren’t distressing.

Response from the Electoral Comission:

Thank you for your email to the Electoral Commission.

The Commission does not regulate political advertising. Campaign publicity material is subject to a number of requirements under electoral law and is also subject to the normal civil and criminal law relating to published material. For example, no campaign publicity material may resemble a poll card or contain a false statement about the personal character or conduct of a candidate.

Candidates and campaigners can make any statement about politics or another candidate’s, party’s or campaigners policies and arguments, but they need to be aware that campaign publications are subject to the general civil and criminal law. They must not contain statements or comments that constitute libel, otherwise they could be liable to serious legal action. Statements or comments that incite violence and/or hatred would also leave them liable to criminal action.

We would recommend that you complain directly to the campaign organisation in the first instance.

36. Chaise Guevara

@ 33 Watchman

I’m inclined to agree with you overall, but…

“the fact this is a very centralising party politics supporting device”

Is it? It seems to me that AV is about as centralising and party-centered as FPTP, except that it gives at least some hope to independents. And it’s a lot less centralized than any version of PR I’ve heard of to date.

Too right. Absolutely awful ads.

It would appear that the photo of the baby comes from stock, in this case the Getty Images collection. I wonder whether Getty are aware of this usage. Hmmm, when did we last hear of political campaigns using stock images and captioning them to suit?

Applause for Lee @24.

Chaise,

I’d back AV against PR any day, because it removes the party (potentially) from the equation to some extent.

However FPTP beats AV in that preferences will at some point be distributed according to party loyalty (so I bet that I will always put Conservative ahead of Labour, unless a sudden conversion of Labour to small-state socialism should perhaps happen, regardless of the merits of the candidate – but I have lived in an area where with only one vote I could not use it on the Conservative candidate (he publically backed John Major as a good Prime Minister for God’s sake…)). That is my point – there will always be a bigger benefit to being aligned to a party under AV than under FPTP, because those who would not vote for the party would still give it a preference. It in fact enpowers the almost hereditary requirement to vote for your family party at some level.

And I remain unconvinced about independents winning under AV – they would need to be compromise candidates to benefit (if you look, most successful independents have been anything but…) – and in almost all cases I suspect they would win under FPTP. Indeed, the recourse to party voting I mention above would probably count against independents once preferences started to kick in, as those who did not vote for said independent started to be reallocated (or to get another vote for) through their favoured parties.

41. Chaise Guevara

@ 40 Watchman

I’m not sure I agree. Yes, Lab/Lib/Con candidates will pick up second-preferences from people who would otherwise have used their one vote on an independent or a small party. But independents and small parties could pick up a lot of FIRST preference votes from people who see them as the best candidate but would otherwise have voted for one of the big parties to avoid wasting their vote.

Could happen a number of ways. Perhaps a Green candidate could win by getting more first-pref votes than before, plus a lot of second-pref votes from Lib Dem and Labour voters. Or maybe a popular small-government independent will find that most people who previously would have voted Tory or Lib Dem for safety’s sake will now vote for him – and end up ousting the Labour candidate who previously would have won thanks to the Tory/Lib split.

If I thought that AV would benefit the big parties more than the others, I might still back in on principle, but I imagine I’d be a hell of a lot less enthusiastic about it.

Stories like this are evidence of how much we need to act on the rhetoric about a ‘new politics’, and how we need to effect real democratic reform: http://www.democraticreform.org.uk

Voting yes to AV will make politicians have to work harder to get, and to keep, our votes. That will at least encourage less usage of such base and unprincipled tactics.

43. Older Not Wiser

Well it is a total waste of money. AV is more unfair than FPTP becuase it rewards people who give alternatives and penalises people who are loyal to a single candidate.

The extra costs of counting at future elections are probably more than £250m

43. Older Not Wiser

If you think ‘loyalty’ to a political party, when a party is primarily the ego of its leader, is a good thing, I don’t think I’ll be taking advice from you.

I’ll stick to my principles and give preferences to parties/candidates according to which/who represent most them – thanks.

@Older Not Wiser

Please explain how AV penalises those who are loyal to a single candidate.

Sunny, this might add some weight to your complaint- the ASA ruled a campaign leaflet WAS subject to their code:

ASA says campaigning leaflet is advertising
The ASA has ruled that a campaign leaflet came within the CAP Code’s remit. A group produced a leaflet protesting against a proposed wind farm in Scotland. The leaflet attracted several complaints, which the ASA upheld in November 2009. However, the group behind the circular disagreed that it constituted advertising material under the CAP Code. It argued that the circular was material produced to inform the public about the proposed wind farm and was not a sales promotion or advertising for a product. The ASA has therefore reissued its adjudication to explain in more detail its rationale for considering that the circular was in remit. Rule 1.1 of the CAP Code lists the various media to which the CAP Code applies, which includes “brochures, leaflets, circulars, mailings … and other … printed material.” Rule 1.3 states that a “product encompasses goods, services, ideas, causes, opportunities, prizes or gifts”. The circular alerted readers about the proposed wind farm and promoted a wind-turbine-free Speyside. It sought to persuade readers to contact Moray Council and the Scottish Executive to back its case and was therefore subject to the CAP Code. The ruling highlights that the CAP Code has a wide reach, and so campaigning groups should note that they need to comply with it when producing material. However, the ASA’s remit does not extend to non-broadcast advertisements where the purpose of the advertisement is to persuade voters in a local, national or international election or referendum (rule 12.1).

Source: ASA adjudication, 3 March 2010.
http://asa.org.uk/Asa-Action/Adjudications/2010/3/Save-Our-Scenic-Moray/TF_ADJ_48204.aspx

47. Neil Shaplin

I haven’t been following the debate regarding the new voting system. I have no idea how it relates to me, personally. But after seeing this advert, I shall be voting yes – purely to show these idiots that scare campaigns such as this do not work.

You would be better reserving your anger for the real offence being commited here – that of a ‘Yes to Fair Votes’ campaign largely funded and staffed by the Liberal Democrats to give them a near permanent position in government built on the disingenuous claim that it somehow fills the ‘democratic deficit’ of the current system. There can be no greater democratic deficit than to hand to these, of all people, the power to prop up a reactionary government without reference to the voters who supported them. That’s the real felony.

@V. Lockwood

Will all due respect, I completely disagree with you and am sick of hearing this pathetic myth. Do you really think that there could be such an electoral system which effectively has the rule “If party = Liberal Democrats then give more power”?

Remember it was first past the post that brought the Lib Dems to power AND it was a Labour government that first made moves to change out voting system to AV.

Most research has shown that AV will not have affected the outcome of any of the recent general elections, so how exactly will it “permanently give power to the Liberal Democrats”?

40 & 41. It may well benefit the big parties, but unlike FPTP where parties like the Greens have had to take literally decades to get themselves a standing in one constituency, convincing a new set of people every 4-5 years that maybe they should switch their vote, under AV there is no barrier to those people “giving it a go”.

The bit we can’t tell, either way, is how many independents and smaller parties will pick up votes, protest or otherwise, because people know full well that it won’t mean that someone they dislike will get in. I personally see it that we’ll have more constituencies where smaller parties or candidates get a boost, and increase the rate at which they can gain support in comparison to under FPTP.

Neil Shaplin @ 47,

I wasn’t too sure either. I was going to spoil my paper and write ‘Independence’ across it, but now I’ll support your idea, vote yes because the no’s are treating us with complete contempt. I see it as a sort of anti-PR ‘call to arms’.

Dicky Moore/49: Do you really think that there could be such an electoral system which effectively has the rule “If party = Liberal Democrats then give more power”?

It’s, so far as I know, never been seriously suggested for UK Parliamentary elections, but the Condorcet system – a very good system in other contexts – would have that effect in UK elections.

It works by electing the candidate for whom you can find at least half the electorate rather having them than any other named voter, and uses the same sort of preference-order ballot papers as Alternative Vote (but usually with compulsory preferencing).

So, in a typical UK Lab/Con marginal constituency:
45% of voters Con 1, LD 2, Lab 3
6% of voters LD 1, Lab 2, Con 3
6% of voters LD 1, Con 2, Lab 3
43% of voters Lab 1, LD 2, Con 3

Con vs Lab: 51% prefer Con to Lab, 49% prefer Lab to Con (Con beats Lab)
Con vs LD: 55% prefer LD to Con, 45% prefer Con to Lab (LD beats Con)
Lab vs LD: 57% prefer LD to Lab, 43% prefer Lab to LD (LD beats Lab)

So LD > Con > Lab: the Lib Dem wins.

This pattern would be repeated in almost every constituency that didn’t have at least 50% first preferences for either Labour or Conservative. Which is well over half of them. Note that the Lib Dems can still win on a lowly few percent of first preferences, so long as the Labour and Conservative parties continue to hate each other more than they hate the Lib Dems.

As I say, never been seriously suggested for the UK, and because of effects like that, almost certainly never will be, but yes, there are electoral systems which effectively say “elect the Lib Dem”, in the context of UK politics (in the same way that FPTP strongly says “elect either Conservatives or Labour”)

Alternative Vote is not, however, one of them. In practice in the UK it would give a marginal advantage to the Lib Dems, but not a significant one, at least in the short term (long term, as all parties adapt to the new electoral system, all bets are off)

Thanks for that. A very interesting system. However, I agree with your final statement, and not even Condorcet will have the rule “If party = Liberal Democrats then give more power”. As you say, political parties learn to play their new election systems (and that’s why AV is an improvement, because of the beahvioural changes it will encourage in MPs).

That’s why it offends me that people think that implementing AV is just giving the Lib-Dems more power. No system will give any party power unless voters support them at the ballot box. Some commentators are suggesting that the Lib-Dems will be “destroyed”, so how will AV automatically give them power?

I’m surprised you are turning to the ASA to adjudicate on this issue at all.

As Brendan O’Neill has rightly pointed out about the Yes to Fairer Votes campaign,’It is a very curious campaign group which one minute agitates for a “fairer” electoral system and the next invites unelected suits to police political debate.’ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100077913/the-censorious-instincts-of-the-yes-to-av-lobby/

Why can’t you just trust the public to make up its own mind on the issue, rather than asking for the judgement of this censorious, unelected body?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  2. Anna

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  3. cowan88

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  4. Frieda_M

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  5. Ulrike Singer-Bayrle

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  6. elliotfolan

    RT @libcon – Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M << Good

  7. sparklykate

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  8. Susan

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  9. Lanark

    LOL cada vez que un sistema de votación se moderniza, Dios mata un bebé http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  10. Dan Hodges

    Liberal Conspiracy reports No to AV to ASA over £250m figure. Will be very interesting to see the response. http://t.co/LXuUEEL

  11. sunny hundal

    Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  12. Captain Awesome

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  13. Richard George

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  14. Gaia Marcus

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  15. electropura

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  16. Michaeljon

    RT @sunny_hundal: 5 reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV campaign to Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M <– disgraceful

  17. sandsdaisy

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  18. Elaine O'Neill

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  19. Caspar 01

    "Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA" http://t.co/9tDBmFv via @libcon

  20. Caspar 01

    "Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA" http://t.co/9tDBmFv via @libcon

  21. William J. C. Brown

    Five reasons why the #No2AV bad campaign has been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  22. William J. C. Brown

    Five reasons why the #No2AV bad campaign has been reported to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  23. Labour Yes

    Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA by @sunny_hundal http://bit.ly/hhCiZ1 #labouryes #yes2av #yesinmay

  24. amy dodd

    RT @labouryes: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA by @sunny_hundal http://bit.ly/hhCiZ1 #labouryes #yes2av #yesinmay

  25. Alex Brooks

    RT @labouryes: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA by @sunny_hundal http://bit.ly/hhCiZ1 #labouryes #yes2av #yesinmay

  26. d poole

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  27. Pauline Hammerton

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  28. Oli Griffiths

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  29. Joe Taylor

    #No2av reported to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @sunny_hundal)

  30. Deborah Grayson

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  31. Will Straw

    Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  32. Mark Thompson

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  33. Daniel Rees

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  34. yes camden

    Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/cGZenAZ via @libcon

  35. vnblog

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  36. Jessica Asato

    Why @sunny_hundal has reported No2AV to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/eNW3ON #labouryes #yesinmay

  37. Arran Russell

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  38. Ali Unwin

    It is a poor ad and an odd line to take, but ASA doesn't regulate this http://cot.ag/h4TfrA

  39. Tara Hewitt

    DISGRACEFUL taking advantage of a baby advert by @NO2AV report 2 the ASA everyone now! http://bit.ly/fRbL5M #yes2AV #no2AV @LivYes2AV

  40. Kelvin John Edge

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  41. Erica Marfell

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  42. Paul Burgin

    RT @Jessica_Asato: Why @sunny_hundal has reported No2AV to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/eNW3ON #labouryes #yesinmay

  43. Tim Fallon

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  44. John Franglen

    RT @Yes_Camden: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/cGZenAZ via @libcon

  45. hjlownsbrough

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  46. Gods & Monsters

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  47. Paul Wood

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  48. Jen Hall

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  49. Nick H.

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  50. Andy Bean

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  51. Emily Davis

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  52. Dawn Foster

    How do my #no2AV followers feel about this ad campaign? http://t.co/3rLUXGF

  53. Dicky Moore

    RT @dawnhfoster: How do my #no2AV followers feel about this ad campaign? http://t.co/3rLUXGF

  54. Dan Hodges

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  55. Owen Jones

    I will be voting #no2av but @sunny_hundal was right to report this sick advert – what were they thinking? http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm

  56. Roger Thornhill

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M << THIS

  57. john matthews

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  58. robertallen14

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  59. Paul Hunter

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  60. Chris Boyle

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  61. sianushka

    @sunny_hundal was right to report this sick advert – what were they thinking? http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm

  62. Martha Mackenzie

    http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm this was outrageous.Why must the #no2av camp be so hopelessly negative. Good on @sunny_hundal

  63. Helen Wayte

    RT @sianushka: @sunny_hundal was right to report this sick advert – what were they thinking? http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm

  64. Naadir Jeewa

    Reading: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA: The campaign against the Alternative Vote are runni… http://bit.ly/dV3ZKI

  65. Noxi

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  66. James Davies

    RT @PaulaKeaveney: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/qHvErX7 via @libcon

  67. realviktoriya

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  68. Benjamin R Lille

    RT @Jessica_Asato: Why @sunny_hundal has reported No2AV to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/eNW3ON #labouryes #yesinmay

  69. Sue Pritchard

    RT @libcon: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  70. Roisin Miller

    RT @trurojoe: #No2av reported to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @sunny_hundal)

  71. Sarah Morrison

    The #No2AV campaign adverts are not just distasteful, they are wrong: http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm (via @libcon)

  72. Luke Denne

    According to #no2av campaigners, more babies will die if we vote #yes2av – appalling advertising being utilised. http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm

  73. Joseph Clift

    RT @S_R_Morrison: The #No2AV campaign adverts are not just distasteful, they are wrong: http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm (via @libcon)

  74. Rhys Williams

    RT @wdjstraw: Well done @sunny_hundal for reporting the No2AV baby advert to the ASA. Nasty stuff: http://bit.ly/fRbL5M (via @libcon)

  75. Will Roberts

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  76. Laura

    RT @santaevita: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LXuUEEL via @libcon

  77. Imogen Caterer

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  78. Becky Lindeman

    RT @santaevita: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LXuUEEL via @libcon

  79. Fernando North

    RT @santaevita: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LXuUEEL via @libcon

  80. Daniel Drage

    The No2AV campaign reeks of outmoded tribal detritus – a victory for FPTP would represent a huge backwards step: http://bit.ly/hhCiZ1

  81. Rosalind Thompson

    RT @santaevita: Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/LXuUEEL via @libcon

  82. Pauline Hammerton

    RT @S_R_Morrison: The #No2AV campaign adverts are not just distasteful, they are wrong: http://tinyurl.com/4f95rzm (via @libcon)

  83. VOTE NO OR THE BABY GETS IT | Jude's Journal

    […] was shocked though when I saw the latest advert from the No to AV campaign (you can see it here. I refuse to put such a horrible picture on my blog, I’m sticking with images of cupcakes and […]

  84. Rocky Hamster

    Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/JVj7llu via @libcon

  85. Meg Howarth

    @highburyonfoot @islingtongreens RT: No2AV's baby advert reported to ASA – http://bit.ly/dV3ZKI

  86. Jordan Millward

    Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/I6pjel9 via @libcon

  87. David Poole

    RT @sunny_hundal: Five reasons why I’ve reported the #No2AV bad campaign to the Advertising Standards Authority http://bit.ly/fRbL5M

  88. The No2AV campaign illustrates how our democracy is up for sale | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] effect, that is the regime we have right now. Yesterday I made a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about a print ad in the Birmingham Mail on Monday 21st […]

  89. Gareth Winchester

    #No2AV are saying #Yes2AV, i.e. democracy, costs too much http://is.gd/Fp8Gh9. Tell that to ppl in #Egypt #Tunisia #Libya #jan25 #feb17

  90. Rooftop Jaxx

    RT @dnotice: #No2AV are saying #Yes2AV, i.e. democracy, costs too much http://is.gd/Fp8Gh9. Tell that to ppl in #Egypt #Tunisia #Libya # …

  91. Therese

    RT @dnotice: #No2AV are saying #Yes2AV, i.e. democracy, costs too much http://is.gd/Fp8Gh9. Tell that to ppl in #Egypt #Tunisia #Libya # …

  92. Hannah Pops Barham

    RT @dnotice: #No2AV are saying #Yes2AV, i.e. democracy, costs too much http://is.gd/Fp8Gh9. Tell that to ppl in #Egypt #Tunisia #Libya # …

  93. don’t let NO2AV use the tactics of the bully anymore « Gyronny Herald

    […] Why I’ve reported the No2AV baby advert to the ASA (liberalconspiracy.org) […]

  94. Electoral Commission respond to #No2AV complaint | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] respond to #No2AV complaint by Sunny Hundal     March 1, 2011 at 10:17 am Remember my complaint regarding the £250m claim by the No2AV […]

  95. Pavitar Mann

    @AdamGBennett Sorry4late reply.Try this http://tiny.cc/t8lw5 from @sunny_hundal.explains it crystal clear.implies a baby or AV choice!

  96. The only thing we should say No to is those adverts | Virtually Naked

    […] have enough equipment if people vote yes. As Sunny Hundal (not somebody I normally would quote!) points out, they are essentially saying “babies will die if people vote Yes.” The onus is now […]

  97. AV campaign – can we please keep to the point? | Bright Green

    […] they waited for a reply from those David Mitchell would call “easily angered people” (yes, Sunny Hundal, I’m looking at you), and from the yes campaign. And once the yes-ers had taken the bait (including sending the poster […]

  98. AV: What could it mean for women? | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] has surprised me more than anything over the course of the campaign (yes, even more than NO2AV’s outlandish adverts) is the lack of discussion about how the alternative vote will affect under-represented groups in […]

  99. New #Yes2AV Postcards site launched | Liberal Conspiracy

    […] coming referendum, Yes campaigners found there was no real arbiter of truth in British politics. Sunny Hundal’s complaint was batted back and forth between Advertising Standards and the Electoral Commission. Yes to Fairer […]

  100. Peter Tarlan

    @RetroJohnny #yes2av's poster http://bit.ly/fuJNTw, and #no2av's poster http://bit.ly/eE8r52

  101. digitaltoast

    Just tried to complain to ASA about the #No2AV leaflet with the £250M lie on the front – not the first to try! http://bit.ly/hhCiZ1 #YEs2AV





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.