Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign


11:40 am - March 9th 2011

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

David Cameron is seriously worried about losing the AV referendum. You don’t have to believe me on that, just listen to the whispers across the media landscape.

The upside looks to be that the Conservative party will effectively take over the No2AV operation and Cameron will front it. I am more than happy for this to happen. The downside is that they are planning to pour more of their City-backed money into the campaign.

Garry Gibbon at Channel 4 said on Saturday that some Tory MPs are in a state of panic.

The argument used to run that losing the AV referendum would be critical for Nick Clegg. Now it looks like losing the referendum the other way could be much worse for David Cameron. Tory MPs stop you in corridors to share their worries – an AV win would be “a dagger at the heart of the party,” “we would never hold power outright again.”

This was followed up by George Pascoe-Watson (formerly at the Sun):

Three senior party figures held a crisis showdown last week at Conservative HQ. Elections guru Stephen Gilbert, party co-chairman Andrew Feldman and regional campaign director
Darren Mott put the fear of God into staffers. They painted a stark and grim picture of the likelihood of the AV campaign winning on May 5.

“Everything pales into insignificance compared to this AV problem”, the gathering was told. Recent polls have shown an increase in support for the “no” campaign. But senior Tories are deeply worried that huge numbers of “no” voters won’t actually take part in the referendum and they won’t count.

Michael Crick at the BBC yesterday reported that CCHQ are actually keeping a tally of how many No2AV posters their local associations are ordering.

If the Labour ‘No’ camp dislike being part of a campaign fronted by Cameron, they don’t haven’t shown it. Neither, it seems, have they reacted to Tory worries that it would hurt them badly. Very odd.

All this may have been a result of the worsening poll numbers (for the No camp) from Ipsos-Mori earlier this week.

Either way, I welcome David Cameron’s decision to take over the No2AV campaign. Its just what I wanted.

    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 ,Conservative Party ,Our democracy ,Westminster

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


If Tory MPs think that a Yes in May would mean that they never governed as a majority again, you have to ask whether they fully understand what AV is.

Indeed, Andy. As has been demonstrated over and over again, AV is the right-wing coalition’s best chance of staying in power for a generation. Without a ‘no’ vote, a united left-wing party is likely to smash them across the country, making Cameron and Clegg a one-term wonder.

“With a no vote”, even…

Let’s just hope that those people who think that voting No to punish Clegg is more pressing than voting Yes to punish Cameron remember why they’re so pissed off with Clegg in the first place.

5. James from Durham

What is this left wing party? Have they put up any candidates before?

6. James from Durham

You can’t be referring to a rag-tag of warmongers, racists and banking industry patsies can you?

“a united left-wing party”

LOL that’s an oxymoron if I ever saw one!

Why has a united left-wing party not won any elections in the last 60 years?

Sorry, forgot where I was. For the avoidance of doubt, I regard the Labour Party as left-wing. Not on every issue, and not as much as I’d have liked it to have been particularly between 2001 and 2007, but left-wing nonetheless.

A Yes vote is good for Cameron, he just can’t say it because some of his backbenchers would go mad as they’re under threat from the Lib Dems. But it would help the Tories in Labour-Tory marginals, and the Lib Dems in Lib-Dem Labour marginals.

It’s the superglue that would turn the Coalition into a 20-year Government. Why do you think he cares more about being seen to back the “No” campaign than about the campaign’s actual chances of winning?

Did the current Coalition come to power under AV? No.

Could the vote pattern at the last election be replicated in future under FPTP? Yes, although I suspect both the Tories and Labour will take seats off the Lib Dems, meaning the Tories would either govern alone or with a small LD contingent.

Let’s face it: the only reason you’re opposed to AV is because the LDs want it, and because Labour cannot cheat its way to a majority like they did in 2005, on a lower share of the vote than the Tories got in 2010.

Labour in power were just like the Tories. Cameron and Clegg are even to the left of Labour on civil liberties issues.

Is this “left wing” Labour party the one that only exists inside the wet dreams of its wildest, most tribal fantasists?

I’m not surprised he’s worried. The Tory share of the vote has been in steady decline for decades. Its nearly two decades since they last won an majority under FPTP. In 2010, they couldn’t win a majority against a knackered government, led by a deeply unpopular Prime Minister, in the middle of a very serious recession. If the Tories couldn’t romp home with a substantial majority even in those most favourable of circumstances then they’ve got serious problems.

It would be very difficult to put togetther a Conservative government under AV, simply because there isn’t sufficient appetite for right-wing politics amongst the electorate. Even FPTP is failing the Tories now. If AV is introduced, then Cameron could be the last Conservative Prime Minister this country ever sees. In many ways, I’m “meh to AV”, but that’s one serious incentive to get out and vote.

12. Planeshift

“you have to ask whether they fully understand what AV is”

Well Cameron himself claims not to understand how AV works, and a great deal of backbenchers have been saying it is too complex.

Almost every A-level (or as level) course in politics contains a section on electoral systems, and to pass a student is expected to be able to explain how each different system operates and evaluate the strengths and weakness of each one. That the prime minister claims not to understand how AV works – one of the simpler systems – suggests he is dangerously under-qualified for his job.

@David Wearing

“Its nearly two decades since they last won an majority under FPTP”

What does it mean to win a majority under FPTP or AV, and if Labour only got 35% in 2005 and the Tories got 36% in 2010 when Labour only got 29%, what does that tell you? Either party would be screwed under AV, but the decline in both their votes means even under FPTP they’d have to form coalitions.

Of course, people like oldpolitics don’t give a toss about making sure each individual MP has to win a majority of votes, as under AV, it’s all about what keeps Labour in power despite its decline in vote and hyper-marginalisation.

14. Chaise Guevara

@ 10 Roger

“Labour in power were just like the Tories.”

Funny that. I could have sworn there was a whole movement protesting against the cuts the Tories brought in after ousting Labour. “UKun-something.” I guess those cuts never happened, what with the parties being just like one another.

15. Chaise Guevara

@12 Planeshift

“That the prime minister claims not to understand how AV works – one of the simpler systems – suggests he is dangerously under-qualified for his job.”

It suggests he’s lying rather more.

Planeshift/12: Well Cameron himself claims not to understand how AV works, and a great deal of backbenchers have been saying it is too complex.

Given the bizarre claims made about what AV would do by both the Yes and No campaigns and their supporters, the backbenchers may have a point.

(I understand that there will be an electoral commission booklet explaining the referendum options in more detail made available before the vote, which might cut down on the misinformation)

Roger/13: Either party would be screwed under AV, but the decline in both their votes means even under FPTP they’d have to form coalitions.

Certainly I’d expect coalition governments to be more common-place under both AV and FPTP in future (assuming the Lib Dems recover a bit, or a minor party or two rises to greater prominence to replace them), but AV is not proportional representation, so getting a Parliamentary majority on 35 or 36% of the total vote [1] remains quite possible under AV.

[1] How one goes about determining what proportion of the total vote a party has when preferential rather than single-party ballot papers are being used, I have no idea. Percentage of first preferences is likely to be the metric that gets used, I expect.

cim – In Australia, it’s the two-party-preferred vote (ie “which of the two biggest parties got the most votes when you eliminate absolutely all the votes for everyone else”). I’d be very interested to have seen how the 2PP would have lined up GE2010 UK – it wouldn’t surprise me at all if Labour would’ve won it.

Given that Cameron’s approval ratings are higher than Ed Miliband’s, it’s not immediately clear to me why this is such good news.

Still, I could care less. Talk about a beltway issue.

17/john b: Looking at the vote proportions, I’d probably say a narrow Conservative win in 2010 on 2PP. Polling of second preferences from late April 2010 suggests a 55:45 win in England, and while it would be something like 80:20 the other way in Scotland, and somewhat more favourable to Labour in Wales, that’s probably not enough to push Labour ahead on 2PP. Very close, though.

Cameron is being sly here but some people genuinely do find AV confusing.

I launched a competition to find better ways to explain it:
http://beyondclicktivism.com/2011/02/22/make-it-matter-where-you-put-your-cross/

There are still nine days left for anyone who wants to enter.

Puzzling that with barely 8 weeks to go that it’s only now dawning on backbenchers a yes vote win might not give them the future election victories they seek…

Hmm. Ignoring the fact that Sunny is so tribal he believes that Labour party politicians will not be able to campaign alongside the leader of the Conservative party on something they all believe (which, taken to its obvious conclusion, since Mr Cameron believes in democracy could present the odd logical problem..), why the hell do so many of the commentators here believe that Labour stands to gain from AV? It is easy to present some counterfactuals.

Firstly, AV returns to the Conservatives all the votes that have gone to UKIP, which is a marked advantage (this obviously assumes it is not a Conservative-UKIP fight…). Which minor parties does Labour expect to pick up – possibly the Greens, but if the Greens become that clearly left-wing, they will lose a lot of their support from centrists and the well-meaning and uninformed.

Secondly, there are a lot of Liberals who would vote for a reforming Conservative government rather than a statist Labour one – you cannot assume that the remaining Liberal Democrat supporter(s – lets be generous) will support Labour. Furthermore, it is possible that the current direction and ideology of the Liberal Democrats is permanent – it is supported by their conference for example.

Thirdly, Labour voters (not members or activists) are not currently particularly any more likely to back Liberal Democrats than they are Conservatives, but Conservative voters probably are more likely to do so than to vote Labour (and this would be the case I believe even prior to the coalition) – so the Liberal Democrats stand to gain more in Labour seats than they do in Conservative seats.

Labour may benefit from AV, but I have my doubts – in a country with a centre-right-of-centre electoral bias throughout the last century (look at elections won and the relative stance of winning governments) and with increasing individuality and liberality amongst the population, the party with the biggest challenge will be the left-of-centre party with a statist agenda (I know technically Labour may change this, but I doubt this will happen whilst it is dependent on the unions).

watchman – no. right of centre ideas are declining and are already probably in the minority. It is only the establishment-rigged ‘democratic’ electroal system that has produced the distortion of centre-right government in perpetuity.

We can cross-analyse things until the cows go home, the realities of the system are that AV empowers popular governments with larger majorities due to the nature of preferences from the lesser parties tending to go their way, and it weakens unpopular ones because of the opposite movement.

If it supports the coalition it will do so because Labour are not yet popular enough to pick up the votes of the Lib Dems and other smaller parties, and vice versa.

I understand this debate has to always come back to the parties, so many political people seem unable to work out which side of the bed to get out of in the morning without some kind of understanding of what the party would tell them to do, but really it’s the people that benefit here, and as long as parties can remain desired then they will feel the results of that benefit.

This is the main reason I feel that the Tories and Lib Dems will lose out to Labour under an AV election, because all of the public opinion we see tells us very clearly that they’re not happy with the direction this country is headed.

Watchman @ 20

The direction of the Liberals is under debate I think. They are co-joined with the Conservative Party at the moment for various political reasons. I have no doubt that for many, they want to be Tories, but they just do want the ‘stigma’ (real or imagined) that being a ‘Tory’ brings with it. Fair play to them and the ‘Orange bookers’. I can see them happily meld into the body of the Tory Party if the Lib Dems go tits up and flatline in the run up to the election.

However, there appears to be a slightly more pragmatic group of people who have bought into the coalition for purely tactical reasons i.e. the referendum on AV. After that referendum has been held, won or lost, the reasons for staying in an increasingly unpopular coalition become less clear to the rank and file. For my own personal opinion, I think the result of the AV, will determine which way the LDs will fall. A huge loss would probably kill of a lot of the LibDem fervour. A win for AV would galvanize the Lib Dems into believing that it was still ‘game on’. Stll, 5th May will answer that, one way or another.

To be fair though, if the Tories think AV will harm them in electoral terms then, I think it has merit.

AV is the right-wing coalition’s best chance of staying in power for a generation

That seems unlikely – a lot of the left-wing Lib Dem vote is likely to go to Labour and to smaller parties, especially with AV. Can you justify it?

Mr Eugenides: Given that Cameron’s approval ratings are higher than Ed Miliband’s, it’s not immediately clear to me why this is such good news.

*sigh* if you bothered to read the previous article you would see. The swing voters on this issue are Labour voters. They’re far more likely to be convinced by Ed M than Cameron.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll doubtless say it again – if your decision on which voting system is better is based on your assessment of whether or not it will benefit your preferred party in the foreseeable future, you’re don’t believe in democracy – you’re trying to rig it. The question should be “which system best captures the aggregate wishes of the electorate (to the extent that such a thing is possible)?” and not “which system will benefit my team?”

29. Chaise Guevara

@ 28 Dunc,

Yeah, agreed. Problem is, “The other voting system will keep someone you hate in power” is a very effective message.

@29: I hate them all. And I don’t think I’m alone in that…

@26 “That seems unlikely – a lot of the left-wing Lib Dem vote is likely to go to Labour and to smaller parties, especially with AV. Can you justify it?”

Sure. There is no almost left-wing Lib Dem vote any more. It’s already gone to Labour under FPTP. The percentage of people currently planning to vote Lib Dem who say they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives in a straight choice is 16% – fewer than 1 in 6.

The smaller parties are a red herring, since they are likely in most constituencies to be eliminated before the Lib Dems, even now. So it might be relevant under SV, but under AV it’s not an issue.

There is one factor about the smaller parties though, which is that they also get to have a second bite of the cherry. There are a lot of people around here fantasising about how that means socialists can rally to the Labour Party on second preferences.

It’s worth setting out, therefore, how many votes these minor parties had available for transfer in 2010;

UKIP: 920,334
BNP: 563,743
Green: 269,378
English Democrats: 64,826
Respect: 33,251
Trade Union and Socialist Coalition: 12,275

Not looking good for the left. Assume, to be generous to AV advocates, that the Lib Dem vote halves at the next election, of which half in turn is a “useful vote” and half is what reformers would call a “wasted vote” and that it splits only 65-35 to the right over the left, and that the UKIP vote doesn’t increase, and you have the following votes

Centre-right to far right: 2,659,887
Centre-left to far left: 913,126

A bonus of 1.75 million votes to Cameron as against Labour. In other words, Labour would need a national lead of 6.5% just to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Sure, the Tories would take some damage in Tory-LibDem marginals, but that’s none of our concern, and only affects the relative balance of Coalition forces, not the existence and electoral success of the Coalition itself.

@oldpolitics

See @28.

“The question should be “which system best captures the aggregate wishes of the electorate (to the extent that such a thing is possible)?” and not “which system will benefit my team?””

That, however, is a different question from the one being asked in the referendum.

My answer to your question is that I’ve got absolutely no idea which out of AV and FPTP best captures the aggregate wishes of the electorate, nor, indeed, if such a thing is possible or desirable. I suspect 99% or more of people would be similarly unable to answer your question, so I doubt the value of asking it in a referendum.

Rather than considering a deeply technical question like the one which you would like people to vote on, I think people are perfectly entitled to vote on the basis of how the result of the referendum will impact on their lives, and the main impact will be in making it more or less likely that the Tories will win the next election. Far from trying to “rig” democracy, I think this is the essence of it.

Joe,

watchman – no. right of centre ideas are declining and are already probably in the minority. It is only the establishment-rigged ‘democratic’ electroal system that has produced the distortion of centre-right government in perpetuity.

I am not sure how our electoral system is rigged, but it’s not very well done – left-wing parties (even if not that left-wing relative to other incarnations) won in 1965, 1974, 1997, 2001 and 2005. Right wing ones (to go over the last fifty years) in 1970 (eventually), 1979, 1983, 1987, 1992 and (just about) 2010. There was one score draw (two if you count 2010)… Seems pretty fair on those results, so I’d suggest there is no rigging there (unless you actually believe most of the population are left-wing, which is going a bit beyond the evidence).

Mind you, in 2010 the average size of a Labour-won constintuency was smaller than that of any other party (this might relate only to England, since the SNP and Liberal Democrats have some very small Scottish constituencies), requiring them to win less votes to win it – which sounds slightly rigged (actually it was pretty much a natural process, but still a bias).

@31 OK, that’s a good answer. I have to say I’m surprised the figure for Lib Dems favouring Labour over the Conservatives has gone quite as low as 16%.

don,

Excellent point there.

@Roger

See 33 🙂

If I believed procedural justice were more important than substantive justice, I’d probably be a Lib Dem. Even then, it’s not clear that AV *is* more procedurally just than FPTP. In particular, if you want to capture the “aggregate wishes of the electorate” (which you rightly recognise is probably impossible) then you would be unlikely to do it with a 600-member districted system.

AV for electing a single individual – a Mayor, or a President – is probably the least worst system available. For electing an assembly, it’s just a subsidy to centrist parties – a centripetal but non-proportional system. Worst of all possible worlds, as well as being bad for Labour.

Tom, yeah. In fairness it’s 51% to 16% with a chunk of “don’t know”, hence me saying 65-35 rather than the 75-25 the raw figures would imply. I imagine Lib Dems who aren’t currently sure would be somewhat less likely to back the Tories than ones who have already made up their minds.

@theoldpolitics:

“A bonus of 1.75 million votes to Cameron as against Labour. In other words, Labour would need a national lead of 6.5% just to be the largest party in a hung Parliament.”

I don’t think your calculations are correct here. How many people would actually bother to fill out all their preferences – quite a lot of people who are actually determined enough to vote UKIP genuinely believe that Tories and Labour are as bad as each other, and others will prefer to stick with just putting a cross in a box because that’s what they’ve always done. I can see a boost for the Tories, but nothing like 1.75 million.

And that’s a static analysis – if we switch to AV then it’s possible to imagine UKIP going up in the polls and overtaking the Lib Dems, in which case there would be greater pressure on Cameron to move to the right, which would alienate their centrist supporters and destabilise the coalition.

Working out how this will play out is really quite hard – it’s not just AV=1 million UKIP votes for the Tories.

don,

I don’t think oldpolitics figures are out of the ballpark though – although I think he may be mistaken to think BNP supporters will end up with the Conservatives en masse which may skew figures by a few hundred thousand.

Apart from anything else, it is possible to pick on one or the other assumptions (as I have just done) but to ignore the fact that they probably balance out with the outliers.

And more to the point, both my hypothesising above and Oldpolitic’s attempts to make sense of the numbers support the point of view that Labour is not the natural beneficiary of Alternative Voting. No one has yet put forward any argument more complicated than the hopeful thought that ‘everyone will vote against the Tories because they are horrible’ to suggest how Labour will benefit – and remember, outside of the circles of people who generally vote Labour (or would second or third preference) that attitude is either not held or is equally applied to Labour. If Labour are relying on a preconception that exists in echo chambers but not necessarily on the streets, they are pretty well doomed.

Lee @24

Spot on as usual, I think.

Don – that’s a really interesting point I hadn’t considered. However, if the question is “will AV benefit the Tories” the answer is “we don’t know”. We simply cannot predict who will vote for who in four years time. As the discussion on here as shown, it’s not clear who Lib Dem 2nd preferences would go to. Or even where people’s first preferences would go to – UKIP and the Greens will get more 1st preferences under this system, for instance.

If people, as Sunny is suggesting, want to “stick it to the coalition”, then probably a Yes vote is better politics, as opposed to “giving Nick Clegg a bloody nose”, which is a sentiment I’ve heard amongst some Labour people.

With their poll ratings being what they are, there’s no way they are going to pull out of the coalition and risk an early general election in which they get decimated.

The way to destabilise the coalition would be to piss off the Tory right. If AV passes, that would seriously annoy the Tory right.

(Of course, I’m of the old-fashioned view that you should really vote Yes to AV *because it’s a better system*.)

“I don’t think your calculations are correct here. How many people would actually bother to fill out all their preferences ”

True, especially in the long term, but I’m not sure ‘people might decide not to use it’ is a great defence of AV! As to the rest, UKIP voters have mostly come from the Tories, so I expect they would return that way – polling suggests that the attitudes of UKIP voters to the issues are not actually far away at all from those of Conservative voters. As opposed to BNP voters, who I agree might not go to the Conservatives en masse, but still need to be included in the maths when people are fantasising about a “progressive majority”.

i despair at old politics. his type drove me away from labour. narrow-minded tribal pseudo-left unable to see the wood for the trees.

Ah Joe, there’s nothing like a bit of abuse when you run out of arguments, is there? If by ‘tribal’ you mean that my main concern is with Labour winning the next election, and the Coalition losing it, then I’m happy to plead guilty.

No idea what you mean by pseudo-left, though. AV is bad news for socialists inside and outside the Labour Party, and it’s no coincidence that most of the leading lights of Labour Yes are from the Blairite Right.

AV means not having to worry about losing votes to the left any more, and – expect to hear it the day after a Yes vote – means getting closer to the centre and, for example, that picking up Lib Dem second preferences is just as valuable as persuading non-voters to come out for Labour.

Oldpolitics – the point you’re missing is that the UK isn’t Australia, where the two political parties are Labour and the Coalition. The Lib Dems and the Tories won’t have an electoral pact (in the very unlikely event that they did, AV would be irrelevant).

The Tories won’t be campaigning for a second term of Coalition – they want a Tory government. The Lib Dems won’t be campaigning for a second term of Coalition either – rather, they want to maximise the number of seats they win so that they can negotiate better terms with another party after the election.

But there’s no reason why the party that the LDs are in a coalition with after the next election has to be the Tories. The last year has shown us that the LDs are good on civil liberties and personal freedom, which are areas where Blairite Labour fell down – so a Lib/Lab coalition next time round, with a leftier fiscal stance than the Lib/Con coalition but a less unpleasant social stance than 2000s Labour doesn’t seem either impossible or a bad idea.

all i know is that anything supported by both the worst of reactionary tories and reactionary new labour must have something going for it!

But seriously, I think your analysis is based on blind loyalty to the worst elements of your party and based on some extremely dubious assumptions.

“But there’s no reason why the party that the LDs are in a coalition with after the next election has to be the Tories. The last year has shown us that the LDs are good on civil liberties and personal freedom, which are areas where Blairite Labour fell down – so a Lib/Lab coalition next time round, with a leftier fiscal stance than the Lib/Con coalition but a less unpleasant social stance than 2000s Labour doesn’t seem either impossible or a bad idea.”

It’s a fantasy. It was a fantasy when Compass tried to raise it in 2010, and it’ll be even more of a fantasy once Lib Dem Ministers, already Tory in background and outlook, have spent five years working cheek by jowl with the Tory Party, and when Lib Dem candidates have fought an election against us, defending the record of the Tory Government.

44/oldpolitics: “AV means not having to worry about losing votes to the left any more, and – expect to hear it the day after a Yes vote – means getting closer to the centre and, for example, that picking up Lib Dem second preferences is just as valuable as persuading non-voters to come out for Labour.”

Nothing of the last twenty years has persuaded me that Labour has been particularly concerned about losing votes to the left under FPTP, either. Picking up Lib Dem and Tory first prefs has been considered far more important than the risk of losing votes to apathy or minor left parties (and as a short-term single election strategy, it even appears to work, because one vote picked up to Labour’s right from an opposing party is worth as much as two votes lost to the left or abstentions – indeed, if the one vote is in a swing seat, you can safely lose ten in a safe seat that way)

AV would allow a party to challenge Labour from the left in the seat without the risk of splitting the left vote as it gained strength. (Similarly, the Conservative safe seats might start being vulnerable to UKIP challenges) This would be a process over multiple elections, not just one, of course – in the same way that the Lib Dems try to take over a seat nowadays – but since it’s fairly clear that FPTP is not anchoring Labour to the left in any useful way, it seems worth a try.

It was a fantasy when Compass tried to raise it in 2010

It didn’t happen in 2010, purely and simply because it would have been impossible. Labour + Lib Dems didn’t have a plurality of seats, so would have relied on PC and SNP for a majority in the UK – which would have meant the nationalist parties had to vote with the government on England-only legislation. Even if the Nats had been willing to completely swallow their principles and agree to that, the net result would’ve been to kill Labour and the LDs in England forever.

I don’t think there’s any reason to assume that if Labour + LDs was possible (by which I mean ‘between them, commanded a majority of MPs in both the UK and England’), it would have been rejected. And if the 2010 election had been under AV, then that would have been the case…

Applause for Dunc @28.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign http://bit.ly/hTHGGE

  2. Simon

    RT @libcon: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign http://bit.ly/hTHGGE

  3. Lauren G

    Oh please oh please RT @libcon: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign http://bit.ly/hTHGGE

  4. Deyan Marconny.

    RT @libcon: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign http://bit.ly/hTHGGE

  5. Trakgalvis

    Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign http://bit.ly/h1Fgpq

  6. sunny hundal

    Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  7. Jane Phillips

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  8. steve...

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  9. kirst

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  10. Tim Hardy

    Still 9 days left for beyondclicktivism competition http://t.co/hwKS6Ng Cameron to take over No2AV campaign http://t.co/J7PWBce

  11. Seumas

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  12. Paul Wood

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  13. Jessica Asato

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <join http://www.labouryes.org.uk !

  14. Lynsey McGough

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  15. sunny hundal

    RT @Hammer: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  16. Pavitar Mann

    RT @Hammer: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  17. Gods & Monsters

    RT @Hammer: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  18. Nick H.

    RT @Hammer: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  19. Annie Franklin

    RT @Hammer: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed.

  20. Kirsty Connell

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed << Hurrah! x

  21. Ben Cadwallader

    RT @Jessica_Asato: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <join http://www.la

  22. Kirsty Connell

    RT @hammer Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <My Yes vote confirmed << Hurrah! x

  23. Gareth C

    RT @Jessica_Asato: RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://bit.ly/hTHGGE <join http://www.la

  24. Declan Burns

    RT @sunny_hundal: Rejoice! Cameron is planning to take over the No2AV campaign. http://t.co/BqgXpn8

  25. Lies, damn lies, but no Statistics « Fifth Decade

    […] Cameron is a little worried now, and there is talk of him taking over the campaign personally. I’d like to give him credit as someone who felt a distaste for all the nastiness, but […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.