“No We Can”: the inside story of the No to AV campaign

No to AV scored a commanding win on 5 May, yet its early days were a muddle of partisan chaos. Dan Hodges reveals how the campaign team was built and tells the inside story of that scandalous poster.

By Dan Hodges Published 11 May 2011 19:30

My first day in defence of Britain's voting system wasn't a good one. An opinion poll had just been published showing double-digit support for changing to the Alternative Vote. Then I had been called in to a meeting where I'd been told our opponents were likely to outspend us by a margin of 3-1.

"You think you've got it bad," said one of my new colleagues. "On my first day someone walked over and said, 'Just to let you know, our Scottish organiser's just died.' "

I had joined a campaign, if not in crisis, then in a quandary. No to AV may have been one organisation but it consisted of a Tory head and a Labour heart. Matthew Elliott of the Taxpayers' Alliance was its director. Joan Ryan, the former Blairite minister and whip, was Elliott's putative deputy.

Labour was split, caught between a desire to oppose anything that could entail sharing power – or even a platform – with Nick Clegg, and a less instinctive desire to support Ed Milband's commitment to electoral reform. This left the No camp reliant on the Conservatives to provide the big battalions and big money.

But come the new year, neither had materialised. David Cameron was determined to stick to the terms of the coalition agreement and would not allow his party to engage with the No camp until the Referendum Bill had been passed. "We couldn't sign off budgets, which meant we couldn't buy ad space and that meant we couldn't even formally launch," one insider recalls.

Big sticks and fires

Things came to a head in the second week of January when Dylan Sharpe, the No team's wily head of press, reported that Gordon Brown's old spin doctor Paul Sinclair had begun touring the parliamentary Press Gallery every day, reinforcing the impression that the Yes campaign was running away with the contest. Sharpe later confided in colleagues that he concocted the story in order to "light a fire" under the campaign. It worked.

Peter Botting, a veteran political consultant with extensive contacts among Conservative backbenchers, was despatched to spread the word in the bars and corridors of parliament that the high command weren't pulling their weight. "It was a dangerous time for us," says a senior Tory activist, recalling that time. "We were getting dragged into the internal politics of the party.

"The usual suspects who had it in for Cameron were going to use us a big stick to beat him with."

Within a week, a delegation led by the 1922 Committee chairman, Graham Brady, was confronting David Cameron and George Osborne. According to one report of the encounter, Cameron was told: "You do realise there is now a serious prospect you could have the distinction of being the last ever Conservative prime minister?" Later, Cameron asked Osborne, "It's not that bad, is it?" "Yes, I think it is," the Chancellor replied.

From that point, though the public message was one of studied neutrality, behind the scenes the Conservatives began to embrace the No camp. Funders were pointed towards the campaign, weekly meetings were established between leading No staffers, and the PM called Elliott in for a briefing on the state of play.

Nevertheless, tensions remained. Though ultimately successful, the relationship between the two senior No campaign managers wasn't always harmonious. Partly that had to do with their respective backgrounds. Joan Ryan is a streetfighter, used to the bare-knuckle politics of the whips' office. Elliott, though caricatured by his opponents as a ruthless Thatcherite wolf, is a quiet, reserved, even slightly shy English gentleman; a strange cross between Norman Tebbit and David Niven.

Out of this disconnect, two campaigns were now operating.The Labour team was put in charge of the "ground war", mobilising activists around the country. The Tories were supposedly running the "air war", the messaging, media and advertising. In reality, neither was in full control of either.

"It was a mess," recalls an activist. "Someone sat down to talk us through the 'media grid'. It started with Churchill's birthday. Fine. Next was Australia Day. We had a line about Australia and Fiji, so we nodded. Then the Queen's birthday. This wasn't a media grid, it was just a calendar."

Moreover, each side had its own ad agency, pollster and designer. The Tories employed Boris Johnson's former campaign manager Lynton Crosby to run focus groups. Labour staffers were sceptical when Crosby's results indicated an implausibly high turnout. Meanwhile, Tory campaigners were suspicious of Labour's marketing agency, responsible for a series of leaflets. "Tory associations were refusing to deliver them," says an activist.

Toxic shock

Drastic measures were required. Ryan grabbed a senior team member and pointed to the dividing wall that separated the two halves of the campaign. "Get a sledgehammer," she said. "That wall's got to be down by the weekend." As it fell, the "Shotgun Strategy" was born: a twin assault on the Cost and Clegg.

The former was simple. I asked the campaign's researcher Piotr Brzezinski how long it would take to finish putting a price tag on the new voting system. "Three weeks," he responded. "Sorry," I said, "it's like that film Crimson Tide. We haven't got three weeks. We have to have that figure by Friday or the world ends." We got it.

The Clegg attack was more problematic. Ryan insisted that we should push the slogan "Tell Nick No"; Elliott thought it too negative. The collapse of the Lib Dem vote at the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election on 13 January made it clear that Clegg was toxic, but the Tories remained cautious.

"Clegg was putting pressure on Cameron to stay out of the debate," says a senior Tory. "After Oldham [Cameron] was sensitive to that. He didn't want to start kicking Clegg when he was down." Conservative HQ sent word that Clegg was not to be touched. But "the key [to winning] was Labour voters. No Clegg, no way of mobilising them," says a Labour campaigner.

It took Stephen Parkinson, the main Conservative linkman in the campaign, to march into CCHQ at Millbank and explain that, without the freedom to attack Clegg, No to AV was over and he would walk. "It was an important moment," says an insider. "People at CCHQ didn't think much of the No campaign, but they respected Stephen. When he started banging the table they had to listen."

CCHQ relented. On 14 February the No campaign formally launched, using images of a baby and with the slogan "She needs a new cardiac facility not a new voting system"; "Don't vote for President Clegg" soon followed.

"The £250m figure gave the campaign a bit of focus and stopped the slide in the polls," says a senior insider. "But even in February, the media weren't that interested in the issue. We needed to find a way of getting it more exposure."

At that point fate took a hand. While preparing a series of regional ads, I failed to notice that one of the standard "baby pictures" had been changed to fit the format of the page. The replacement image was much more graphic, with tubes, wires and syringes.

"Yes pounced, the pro-AV press slaughtered us and CCHQ hit the roof. But the [£250m] figure went global," a former colleague recalls. The move had one unintended consequence: it drew fire away from the attacks on Clegg. "Yes was after the £250m figure precisely when we were moving off and starting to go for Clegg," another insider says.

Flip a light switch

With less than four weeks to go until polling day, Downing Street informed us that Cameron was planning a new, high-profile intervention. Alarm bells sounded among the Labour team. Ian McKenzie, a former spin doctor for John Prescott, warned Ryan that the lobby was being heavily briefed that No was a "Tory front". Jane Kennedy, the former Labour MP who had skilfully shepherded over half of her erstwhile colleagues into the No camp, expressed unease at the potential impact of Cameron's proposed speech.

"The key to victory was Labour voters. They were effectively the switchers. If Yes managed to turn it into a referendum on Cameron, we were in trouble," notes a Labour staffer.

Ryan demanded a meeting with Elliott and one of Cameron's close aids, Stephen Gilbert. Sensitive to growing Lib Dem criticisms of collusion between No 10 and the No campaign, they decided to hold the meeting in a private room of the Park Plaza Riverbank Hotel on the Albert Embankment. "Joan told Gilbert that Cameron had to back off," says a source. "The PM doesn't do backing off," came the response.

A compromise was reached: Cameron would speak, but together with a senior Labour, the former defence secretary John Reid. Labour voters got the message. The morning after Cameron and Reid's joint appearance, the Guardian published a poll showing that support for AV had collapsed. In effect, the 2011 referendum campaign was over.

Dan Hodges was a communications consultant for the No to AV campaign.

A version of this article appears in this week's New Statesman.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: AV referendum AV Electoral Reform

More from Dan Hodges

96 comments

Wed, 2011-05-11 23:11 — David Bouvier (not verified)

Dan is a grownup who will happily talk to people he disagrees with (so long as their is drink in it - though it has been a decade since I had the pleasure). And he can handle the idea that someone else might have something work saying.

And so many of you are factional idiots who would think that anyone who disagrees with you on anything must be mean evil and stupid. Your conversations must be really really dull and short.

Sun, 2011-05-15 18:07 — M. D (not verified)

Thankyou Dan Hodges, for playing your nasty little part in manipulating the great, misinformed public into keeping an utterly useless electoral system. Congrats, you should be proud.

Also I'm really not the biggest AV fan, but even a cursory glance at FPTP elicits the real reason the two main parties decided to keep it. Vested interest.

Sun, 2011-05-15 18:20 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

M D,

Thanks.

I am.

Thu, 2011-05-12 00:45 — OhFFS (not verified)

Well, David Bouvier, that was a wonderful contribution.. in a really dull and short kind of way.

Thu, 2011-05-12 01:43 — Sally C

Very interesting insight.

The more the public saw of the system, the less they liked it.
A vistory for common sense.

Thu, 2011-05-12 01:59 — DAG (not verified)

Dan, why are you even a member of the Labour party? Is it just hereditary?

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:29 — RDJW (not verified)

Dear New Statesperson,

I concur with a few previous posts. Us loyal readers don't like to read articles we don't agree with. There's no room for discourse in our rhetoric. So please sack Dan Hodges.

Sincerely,
Headsinsand.

ps. please change publication title to remove gender bias. Like Constitutional Reform, this is of the utmost importance. Who cares if Rome is burning.

Thu, 2011-05-12 19:38 — Oliver McCarthy (not verified)

Ah, the AVs versus the AV-nots! No, the No campaign was not brilliant. But it was saved by the disastrousness of the Yes campaign - and by the fact that no one really wants Nick Clegg to be Deputy PM for the next twenty years.

Fri, 2011-05-13 23:44 — Left Is Forward (not verified)

All "electoral" solutions to democratic control of the country are deeply flawed, because they will always allow the rich and powerful to buy up enough of the electorate to win - regardless of which, the bulk of the economy (and the capital that underlies it) is held as "private property" and is therefore out of democratic control.

The real solution is going to be direct not representative democracy, and control of the ENTIRE country and economy by Workers' Committees. In no other manner is socialism possible - and socialism is the only true democracy. AV vs FPTP vs PR is just a sideshow.

Thu, 2011-05-12 06:39 — Qui Bono (not verified)

OhFFS ~ google self-awareness

Sun, 2011-05-15 21:36 — Dick the Prick (not verified)

Chin up Dan.

That was good fun. Much appreciated. I think much of this debate has been going on in Tory circles but mainly regards democratic deficit. It's not a problem when people are relaxed but communities are connected and it's sometimes hard to see through the smoke. Every ward is different and people know that. FPTP can end a safe seat - they're ain't no such thing as a safe seat anymore. Let's see how electronic social network scrutiny works out first.

You've made a lot of enemies but you made an early decision and here is where you are. Fair enough lad, fair enough. KBO.

DtP

Mon, 2011-05-16 00:18 — Andy Jones (not verified)

For the sake of progressive politics, now let's get rid of PR in Wales and Scotland.
Let's face it - it is purely a sectional device for the Lib Dems to gain more MPs.
They would permanently be in government. They would decide who formed the government. They would be the tailwagging the dog.
Will someone explain to me how that is an advance for democracy?
Why should Labour Party members support a system that will make them dependant upon the uneliable and reactionary Lib Dems?

Thu, 2011-05-12 08:15 — gerry (not verified)

Voting reform has been betrayed - not by the voters, but by the Lib Dems.

Dont they understand that most of us, the voters, see Clegg and their leaders as toxic, bare-faced liars and examples of politics at its worst?

Before the 2010 election, the Lib Dems clearly said that Tory deficit and tax plans were rash, too rapid, and unfair...after the coalition, the Lib dems now say that they had to join the Tories and support the rapid deficit reduction plan to save the country from meltdown!

Do they think we dont remember what they said just a year ago?

The Lib dems are disgusting old-style political fixers, unprincipled and arrogant... and the referendum loss is all their fault.

Sat, 2011-05-14 00:38 — Paul, Croydon (not verified)

Thanks for enshrining Tory electoral hegemony, Dan. It's not as if they've just unashamedly gerrymandered the system.

This is why the left never wins

Sat, 2011-05-14 00:42 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Dan, got to agree with you with regards to Rob's post. It took me ages to work out what he meant but when I did I realise that we have a linguistical mastermind on the site. Perhaps Rob is a scrabble champion or a cnut. Which one do you reckon he is?

Thu, 2011-05-12 09:25 — Yonmei

It's a nice story, but as it's written by the No To AV campaign, we have no reason to suppose that any of it's true.

What I would like to know is why Dan Hodges went Tory, but I suppose that will be for the post-retirement memoirs - assuming anyone cares by then.

Sat, 2011-05-14 02:49 — Sally C

Utterly bizarre comments on here considering the current FPTP system makes it nigh on impossible for the Tory Party to win an outright majority. It makes Labour winning a majority a doddle.
How can supporting such a system be anti Labour?

The Yes campaign was full of this emotional irrational immaturity and whinging. Bit less of it and they might have done better.

Mon, 2011-05-16 00:37 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Luddite, you missed the question mark again. It should read, "But who gives a fuck?"

If you're havin problem with yar Englsh ya should employ me to do ya prooofreadin.

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:13 — Leftygreg

Absolutely bloody shameless! It's disgusting. May as well have called it "my lies n shit lolz"

Thu, 2011-05-12 22:32 — Progressive Tory (not verified)

Dan Hodges, I can't understand what your motives were for helping the No campaign; a campaign undeniably built on lies and fear-mongering. Why did you oppose AV to this extent? What do you like about the end result, and how is it worth the tactics you employed?

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:17 — Ken Hall (not verified)

I have noticed a lot of YES labour supporters on here denying reality and claiming Dan has become a tory and thinking that the NO labour camp were not real labour etc...

Anyone claiming that because they shared a stage with Cameron it makes them a tory, or that they recognised the undoubted strength in campaigning terms of Cameron's intervention is a tory is living in cloud cuckoo land.

The old labour stalwarts who also came out in favour of the No campaign are certainly not tory, but they do know how to campaign successfully.

The one defining and crucial turning moment in this campaign for me, and quite a lot of other floating voters, was seeing Cameron and Dr Reid sharing a stage and uniting behind the NO message.

This was a very sharp contrast to the petulant and childish approach taken by Miliband in refusing to share a platform with Nick Clegg. Miliband and Clegg have far more in common in general ideological terms, than Cameron and Dr Reid, yet Cameron and the "old"(successful) labour figures presented a much more principled, united, mature and professional image. This gave their argument gravitas and weight in the public mind.

Miliband appeared petulant, selfish, childish and thoroughly unprofessional by comparison and turned off a load of voters.

This is what turned a small and arguable victory for the no campaign, into a total dominant rout.

Miliband and many of the losing labour side's reaction to that loss was also disappointing. To deny that Miliband had much to do with the campaign and blame Clegg for a loss in support that happened after Miliband had already taken a leading role in the campaign, refused to be seen dead with Clegg on an issue they both agreed on, and publicly lead a campaign to change the voting system to one in which he was selected to lead his party in spite of the fact that his party voted against him? Lying about why they lost adds further distaste to the no campaign.

Miliband now firmly has the whiff of LOSER about him. He may have strong and loyal support from his supporters, but they are a rapidly diminishing number of people.

Thu, 2011-05-12 22:48 — Arthur Williamson (not verified)

The 3rd last paragraph in this article raises the most important point. The Tories were voting NO, the LibDems were voting YES, it was all down to the Labour voters.

Makes me wonder if the likes of Mr John Reid, (or Dan Hodges) ever stopped to think `this is a great chance to give Cameron a bloody nose`.

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:35 — Andy (not verified)

Great post Ken Hall. No coincidence that most of the anti-Dan Hodges comments here also fall well within the realms of "petulant, selfish, childish and thoroughly unprofessional."

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:38 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Leftygreg,

"Absolutely bloody shameless! It's disgusting."

Maybe. But it's also true.

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:46 — Ken Hall. (not verified)

"... enabling the Tories to divide and conquer despite the fact that they don't have a majority support in the country. "

In 2010 Labour won a million fewer votes than the worst result of John Major in 1997. When pretty much everyone (including the tories) recognised that the tories had been utterly and completely rejected by the electorate in 1997, how the hell does Brown getting a smaller share of the vote than Major and a MILLION fewer votes, give you the impression that he would have had more of a mandate to lead the country than Cameron?

The fact is, the current coalition is made up of the MP's who collectively won over 17 million votes, a clear and absolute majority of 59.1%

Even Blair never won so much support in a General Election, even at the height of his popularity.

So the tories themselves failed to win a majority of votes. Though they did win a larger share of the vote and more votes and had more than double the lead over the second placed party, than Blair had in 2005 and so it shows that this country voted more strongly in 2010 for a Cameron majority than for a Blair majority in 2005.

Where were the labour supporters claiming that Blair had NO mandate to govern with only 35.3% share of the vote? I am a political anorak, yet I never found ANY!

The argument that there is an anti-tory majority is easily met with the equally true, and more powerful argument that there is a much bigger anti-labour majority.

So, were the left divided too much? let's look at the "progressive majority" argument

Not everyone that voted for a party other than tory, were left wing. UKIP got almost a million votes themselves, taking enough votes away from the tories to deny an overall majority of seats to Cameron.

Additionally not all the Liberal Democrats are left wing. Some of them are centre right.

Adding up all the votes cast at the last election, out of the 29 million votes cast, slightly over half were cast for right or centre-right candidates. (including the centre right liberal democrat candidates) very slightly under half were cast for left or centre left candidates (including the centre left liberal democrat candidates)

There is NO progressive majority. the country is roughly 50-50 but is marginally more conservative with a small c.

Had there been this progressive majority, then the Yes campaign should have done much better. It failed miserably, because there is no progressive majority.

Mon, 2011-05-16 03:38 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Luddite, do you own your own business or are you just a manager of one?

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:56 — Clem the Gem

So Mr Hodges, what have actually achieved? The strengthening of the Tory Party in power. The negating of any chance during the next four years of a democratic House of Lords. The effective Gerrymandering of the elected House. The weakening of our new leaders' position. The delaying of just, democratic reform of our Government. The fostering of disarray in our own ranks. Hardly edifying I would say...

Thu, 2011-05-12 10:59 — Phil (not verified)

Ken - the Lib Dems stood on a very different manifesto to the Tories - especially on deficit reduction. You can't then just add their votes to the Tory votes and say that is a mandate. They were gathered under false pretenses.

I don't have any party allegiance and voted Lib Dem at the election. A lot of people feel cheated out of their vote. Also Clegg's presence with Miliband would have lost the Yes campaign even more votes, it was a wise move by Miliband.

Thu, 2011-05-12 11:12 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Clem,

"So Mr Hodges, what have actually achieved?...The weakening of our new leaders' position...The fostering of disarray in our own ranks".

With respect, and can think of others to blame for that, can't you...

Mon, 2011-05-16 08:13 — Luddite (not verified)

No i'm not a manager. I own the business. Why should that surprise you, aren't poor working class kids capable of achieving anything. That's a bit arrgant of you, what do you do?

Sat, 2011-05-14 09:43 — Luddite (not verified)

If Labour can't win with the first passed the post. Labour doesn't deserve to win, it's all about winning the political and economic arguments. Not changing the voting system with the forlorn hope of gaining political advantage.

Mon, 2011-05-16 08:36 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Luddite: it doesn't surprise me. In fact I would have been more surprised if you had been the manager of someone else's business. Generally what line of business do you do?

What do I do? Anything I feel like most of the time. I own a few acres and a big house that I improve and do things with. I arse about a lot. I play table tennis and golf. Recently I've been getting up and eating my sheep's liver/balls/hearts and eggs for breakfast then going into my back shed and having a joint from my own home grown weed. I spend ages outside in my paddock which has lots of 200 year old gum trees messing about with fencing, sheep, veggies. Wednesday and Friday afternoon I get drunk. At the moment its quite cool so I lit fires a lot. Every night we have a wood fire so that takes time and chopped wood. I'm a bit like the game keeper in Lady Chatterley's Lover as you often find me screwing the Lady of the manor in the back paddock.

What do you get to apart from work or are you time poor?

Mon, 2011-05-16 10:14 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Luddite: I did have my own business in Japan in the early 90s when I made heaps of money. I didn't pay any tax (I was an evader!) so I empathise with you with regards to tax. I could try to make more money but I can't be bothered sorting things out anymore. Besides I have all I need.

Thu, 2011-05-12 12:11 — Clem the Gem

Of course, but Dan, you have used your voice and position to further the cause of a bunch of clapped-out ultra Blairites, like Reid and Blunkett, in conjunction with the Tory party, Taxpayers Alliance.
What are you for?
In both senses of the phrase.

Sat, 2011-05-14 12:23 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Luddite, the first two sentences should be one. And the second sentence should have a full stop after the word 'win'. Apart from that not a bad attempt at passing the eleven plus.

Thu, 2011-05-12 12:34 — BigC (not verified)

@Clem

"The effective Gerrymandering of the elected House"

Please explain why removing an existing bias towards Labour and making (as far as possible) all constituencies an equal size is "gerrymandering"? I would have said "fair" is a better description!

Sat, 2011-05-14 12:25 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

And the last sentence isn't really a sentence. Please read it carefully!

Really Luddite you can't come on here half-cut from the night before and expect to get away with it.

Sat, 2011-05-14 12:36 — Doug Bowers, Yorkshire (not verified)

Sally C,
Yes, there were inherent biases within the system from 1997-2010. But you seem to be unaware of the systematic gerrymandering which the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill surreptitiously facilitates. What's more, if Scotland does become independent, we'll see unbridled Tory predominance in the Commons without a different electoral system. And anyway, one shouldn't defend an electoral system based on its transitory biases. Electoral biases change. Do you remember the wilderness years from 1979 to 1997 and how unfair FPTP was to the Labour Party then? As demographics change, the system's biases change. In 1951 it accorded Churchill the Premiership despite the Labour Party having acquired more votes; in February 1974, it accorded the Labour Party more seats despite having less votes. The retention of a system cannot be justified on the basis that it formerly afforded the Labour Party an ephemeral advantage.

Mon, 2011-05-16 11:26 — Larry Edgar (not verified)

Luddite, go troll elsewhere.

Dan Hodges, you should go troll elsewhere too. This is a place for progressives not reactionaries

Sun, 2011-05-15 11:09 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

LD Lawrence: that applies to you as well.

Mon, 2011-05-16 11:44 — Mr. Divine (not verified)

Dan as you probably know Australia has a AV voting system. Usually you get a couple of papers, a big one and a little one. I don't know exactly how it is calculated but you vote for one in the House of Reps and t'other in the Senate. On the paper you can list your preferences or you can just choose one. Don't ask me how they work it all out. It's complusory voting for citizens and we missed it once and had to appeal a fine (we were moving house).

I suspect the opposition to the change in the system has a lot to do with not understanding how the changes work. In Australia's case it works well because the upper house is an elected body. It's a fairer system of representation that's for sure.

Thu, 2011-05-12 13:02 — Clem the Gem

@BigC - For the hard of understanding, let me explain, as simply as I can;
For the past 112 years, on all but two occasions, the Conservative party has been in Government with less than 50% of votes cast for the majority of the time. The Boundary Commission, independent of political influence, and closely watched, has periodically adjusted Constituencies according to widely agreed rules, and with consultation.
I am old enough to remember Labour complaining about its rulings in the 1980s and 1990s - all opposition parties do. Yet the system does serve the UK well. Given the electoral and political history of the UK over the past century, there is no empirical evidence that Labour has "an existing bias" towards it - rather the reverse over time in fact.Yet this is more due to having a non- proportional voting system than Constituency boundaries.
The changes now being pushed through may equalise Constituencies, but take into account neither historical nor geographical factors - just ask the voters of The Isle of Wight and Southampton.
The culling of 50 seats, on arbitrary lines, at a stroke makes your MP more distant and only helps our solidifying political class. Indeed, as our population continues to rise, the case could be made for more seats, not less. The proposed changes, when subject to scrutiny, do on the face of it seem to favour one party, namely the Tories.
The changes have been sold by ministers on the grounds of cost, not "fairness" - a startling admission by your Government, BigC.

Fri, 2011-06-17 21:54 — Lib Dem coming in peace! (not verified)

I know this is an old article but the comments on here are amazing. This campaign was the first time I was eligible to vote, and I campaigned a lot for a Yes vote. Mr Hodges, while obviously as a Lib Dem I voted and campaigned for Yes, I respect that No won, comfortably, and your reasons for voting No, whatever they may be. However, what amazes me are these "progressives" are screaming that because you voted No and did the unspeakable sin of praising ONE Tory(I can happily praise many, they're mostly very nice and open to debate), the "progressives" are screaming with gnashed teeth and bloodshot eyes for your blood. Isn't one of the points of a progressive to think outside the box, accept all diverse views and look on what we can do for the future, instead of squabbling about the past? What these Labour tribalist's are writing down is some of the most regressive, and dare I say "conservative" pieces of rubbish I've ever seen. Also, the idea that Yes was a Labour campaign? Err no, didnt around 60% of Labour MP's voted No, and similar percentage of Lab votes in exit polls.

Bloody hell, no wonder the left is in disarray...

Sat, 2011-05-14 14:22 — Luddite (not verified)

Mr. Divine. Who gives a fuck. AV or first passed the post Labour will not be forming another government for awhile, and with that we can all breathe a collective sigh of relieve.

Fri, 2011-05-13 15:17 — FA

Dan Hodges

Congratulations for helping the forces of conservatism. And the Conservative Party.

If I expressed how I felt about you I would have my post removed. It is clear tha British politics needs less involvement of inane journalists who have no experience of the real world.

Fri, 2011-05-13 08:57 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Progressive Tory,

I opposed AV because I don't support any electoral system that increases the prospect of a hung parliament and coalition government.

As we've seen, the greatest barrier to regaining the public's trust in the political system is the spectacle of political parties tearing up the manifestos their candidates were elected on in order to get into government.

Thu, 2011-05-12 13:36 — Dan Hodges (not verified)

Clem,

"you have used your voice and position to further the cause of a bunch of clapped-out ultra Blairites, like Reid and Blunkett, in conjunction with the Tory party, Taxpayers Alliance".

Do you not think the settled will of a majority of your fellow citizens may have had something to do with that as well?

Fri, 2011-05-13 10:45 — John P (not verified)

@firsttimer - 20 million people voted. Yes lost and lost bad, end of. The result might have been stronger because of Dan and no being brutally effective but yes was useless too. http://www.peterbotting.co.uk/blog/blogging-botting/messaging-mistakes-b...