The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Syndicate contentRSS

Would AV now hurt Labour and help the Tories?

Most Lib Dem second preferences would now go to the Tories, not Labour.

In the past, it was often assumed that the Alternative Vote (AV) would benefit Labour, as the party could bank on large numbers of second-preference votes from Lib Dem supporters.

One simulation by the Electoral Reform Society suggests that, had the last election been held under AV, Labour would have gained four seats, the Tories would have lost 25 and the Lib Dems would have gained 22. In 1997, thanks to anti-Tory tactical voting, Labour's majority would have swelled from 179 to 245. In 2005, it would have been 88 rather than 66.

But a new Channel 4/YouGov poll suggests that it's now the Tories, not Labour, who would gain most (or lose least) from AV.

As the table below shows, before the election Lib Dems voters would have split their second preferences in favour of Labour rather than the Tories (42 per cent to 27 per cent). Returning the compliment, 64 per cent of Labour voters would have put the Lib Dems as their second preference.

YouGov's estimate based on those splits is that this would have cost the Conservatives roughly 30 seats, with Labour gaining 11 and the Lib Dems 19.

AV Table

But in this era of "new politics" that's all changed. By a slight majority (see table below), Lib Dem voters now split in favour of the Tories (38 per cent) rather than Labour (33 per cent), while only 33 per cent of Labour supporters would back the Lib Dems.

The upshot of all this is that vote transfers from AV would now benefit the Tories more than Labour. If repeated at a general election, the transfers would have cost Labour 15 seats but the Tories would have lost just two. The Lib Dems would have gained 15 seats.

AV table 2

I'd expect these figures to strengthen the cause of those on the right (such as Philip Blond) who argue that the Tories have nothing to fear from AV. They should also increase the likelihood of a Tory-Lib Dem pact at the next election.

Meanwhile, in Labour, diehard tribalists such as John Prescott and Andy Burnham (electoral reform is of interest to "Guardian readers" only, apparently) will seize on the figures as evidence that the party should avoid the Alternative Vote at all costs.

But the lesson they should draw from this survey is quite a different one. If Labour wants to enter government after the next election, it will need Lib Dem support, be it from tactical voting or second-preference votes.

Figures like Prescott (a man who represents all that is wrong with Labourism) should drop the hectoring, condescending tone they use towards the Lib Dems and make a more constructive and sophisticated appeal to the party's supporters. As the data shows, hurling abuse at the Lib Dems isn't going to win Labour any votes.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

27 comments

j5ck's picture

From the polls shown in the article, it is clear to see that the electrate tend to vote 'anti-governemt' - and you don't have to be a genius to work out why. I think that poeple that want a change of government will be forced then to vote labour and one other party. Personally, i fear that in more right-wing constituences you will see a rise in smaller parties, such as UKIP and the BNP. Equally, people that usually vote for either the lib dems or the tories, will then not want to vote for the other (to avoid another post-elction sham)- and the age of tactical voting would have well and turly begun! (although i am more that aware that it has been going on less obvioulsy for many years now)

sid's picture

Unless Labour address their abject failure to control spending and the city any manifesto pledge they make will be worthless. Nothing will save them from decades in opposition including AV. When Labour fight the next election, exactly what will be in their manifesto. The financial con-trick that left us the bill has been blown. Massive spending without massive taxes has lead inevitably to enormous debts and 20% devaluation. Massive taxes as Brown and Blair cynically knew would have burst the bubble fueled by credit. The loss of the 'feel good' factor all those gullible voters experienced would have cost Labour power. Labour need a good clear out. All those at the top a culpable. There are too many self-serving hypocrites wielding power at the top of the party. Until there is a cull at Labour HQ they will be an irrelevance.

John Green1's picture

The only hope Labour has of remaining the official opposition party in the future is to own up with honesty to the lies and the incompetence of the regressive Blair and Brown years. An apology would help its cause.

Whether the party supports AV or not is irrelevant. However, it is critical for its survival that it stops immediately its campaign against the Liberal Democrats. It smacks of sour grapes; we know that the Labour overtures to Nick Clegg were rejected, but get over it.

Labour has many years in opposition to which to look forward and it will only survive if it abandons its knee-jerk reaction to everything that this progressive, reforming government is proposing. (The latest gaffe is from Jack Straw; describing the reform of parliament as “gerrymandering”. The man is a fool.) Labour must challenge the government when necessary but support it when appropriate.

At the moment Labour has absolutely no credibility.

middlesbroughphil's picture

Is anybody working for enhanced polarisation? Surely, if you dont know who you are you have no alternative but to piss in the same pot.

praha7's picture

If A.V.is going to increase both the Tory and Lib/Dem representation can you give me one good reason why any Labour supporter should vote yes in the referendum?

Abby's picture

Why, in the name of all that is decent and good, should the Labour MPs vote in favour of A.V or whatever to keep Clegg, the betrayer, in the post that he was not voted to in the first place? Even if it was in the Labour's election manifesto. The 2010 manisfesto is dead and buried, it is irrelevant, they are not in govt, we have a new leader on the way and politics has moved on. All the leadership contenders should feel free in their conscience to vote the way they please, they owe no one any explanations and certainly not Clegg who always resort to insult when he doesn't get his way, like a petulent child.

Talking about election manifestos and credibility, the ConDems are operating on mandates that bears very little resemblance to what was sold to us during their respective campaigns, so, no more lectures please from Libdems and Tory dry brained!

Dave's picture

The British public have waited 80 years for a referendum on a fairer voting system, to vote it down for reasons as parochial as "to put one over Nick Clegg" would be the height of idiocy. Nonetheless, I fully expect it to happen - the British electorate are idiots who do not deserve PR.

jeremiah's picture

Want to give Lib Dems a kicking and deliver a future majority Labour Government?

Then vote NO!

praha7's picture

I'm with you Abby and Jeremiah.

9xzulug's picture

either way you look at the voting system av + leading to progressive is whats reqd to hold politicians to account.coalition is what it is.but their are many that disprove of coalition,many complained at not been able to vote.there is also the question of 5yr fixed term parliament.is this constitutional?many voted for tactical reason and found that certain parties renaged on their fragile broken promises.ASKING TO CLAIM NON VOTES IN REFERENdum?JOKERS.THE BRITISH PEOPLE ARE NO LONGER GULLIBLE TO THE KNOWLEDGE THAT LABOUR MADE CALCULATED MISTAKES.but this CONDEM(us all)PARTY ARE HELLBENT ON FAST TRACKING,KNEE JERK REACTION POLICIES,BOWING TO CORPORATE(banking) WORLD IDEAS WHICH INCIDENTLY PUT US ALL IN THIS FINANCIAL CORPORATE MESS IN THE 1ST PLACE.WHICH WE HAVE THE PRIVELEGE TO PAY TO CLEAR UP?der.heads they win tails we lose!!!(ILLUMANTI SYSTEM)

Dave C's picture

If the Suicide Pact lasts the full five years, then presumably the Lib-Dems would be obliged to tell their supporters to give their second preference to the Tories, and the Tories would return the favour. In that respect, it would help the Tories and harm Labour.

I think the June YouGov poll reflects a 'honeymoon' period, which is unlikely to last that long, given the unnecessarily deep and swift cuts that the Lib-Dems themselves campaigned against before the election.
A disillusioned Lib-Dem or a disillusioned moderate Tory is more likely to give Labour their first preference, which can only be good for Labour.

Graeme's picture

George, this piece seems to be floating in neverland. The pain, the misery and the black fury of so many people who were lied to, and now attacked - their frustration is not going to end up with a few AV ticks. Any voting system is irrelevant when politicians lie in their teeth, like Clegg and his ilk.

mr_wonderful's picture

By the time an election is held under AV (if it ever happens) the whole political landscape could have changed yet again. The political elite may be overflowing with joy at the current coalition but the voters may feel otherwise.

Jeremy Smyles's picture

The only way the libdem government ministers can sustain their political career is to become Tories. http://calamityanddodgy.blogspot.com

Simoso's picture

Many Lib Dems will not be Lib Dems in any future election as they have been led to believe they were voting to keep the Tories out in many constituencies. The opposite was in fact the case so are we so sure that their vote will hold up anyway? Labour are best staying out of it all, voting against it as they will take back any voted they took from Labour. Tories will lose votes when they tip us back into spiralling recession. AV was only supported by the big parties to court the LD partnership. The Tories will actively campaign against it and so will Labour.

j5ck's picture

@Abby - boohoo! A government that lies! well that's never happened before. It's just the same as when Gordon and Tony refused to change the constituencies boundires as people moved south to give them a majority, so why do you see AV in a different light?

reneexoc's picture

I disagree with the statement above but this is all a side issue to what is really at stake...

At the end of the day our current system is an illusion of democracy - usually well over 50% of the votes are thrown away and don't count so statistically the majority of the population wasted their time walking to the voting station - this is terrible. at least AV will set up a system in which the majority of the population will have a say in who runs the country as each MP would need 50% of popular support (unlike the 35-40% which is usual). All of the crap spoken in the world cannot take this fact from AV. What gets me with some of the statements above is the total single mindedness - 'AV will be bad for this or that'. Well do you want to live in a democracy or don't you. Surely if the majority of the population want something they should get it shouldn't they. I would hold this to be true even if they I didn't want it because it would be fair - if you are saying you will deprive the majority in order to push your own ideals then you are saying that you think other peoples options shouldn't count. If you vote against AV under this premise then you will be voting against democracy to protect your own personal ideals - if anyone does this next year then shame on you. I don't agree with a lot of peoples opinions but I go hold that we should all have an equal say. I certainly wouldn't want to gag them or deliberately stop them having a vote which seems to be what a couple of posts above are saying. AV is for everyone - you and me. It is against corruption and self serving politics which discount the desires of the majority. If you are planning to vote no please consider seriously the view I have just given and ask if you were on the receiving end (which some of you will be) would you want your vote to be counted or not. Also go to the electoral reform society website and read some informed knowledge on the matter. It would take you 5 minutes and will give you more facts to help you decidewhy AC is correct. If you are planning to vote yes please please please keep telling people the truth in order to give them a chance to change things in a way which benefits them/us all - well everyone apart from corrupt MPs and self serving millionaires but they can go and $%^& for keeping the power with them for so long at the expense of the rest of us.

reneexoc's picture

PS as I said I disagree with the above leading statement - 90% of the liberals I know totally distrust the conners and would have loved to go into a coalition with labour - if only either of us would have had a few more seats to form a stable government - don't worry about next time.At the moment I voted lib-dem and ended up with a T&^er. If we had used AV we would mainly have voted labour second which would have been one more labour MP and one less con artist. This is what AV would have done in Cannock Chase. talking to friends over the country this result seems to be repeatable everywhere - under AV we would have had a labour lead Lab-Lib coalition. This will happen next time as long as we have AV.

Graeme Hancocks's picture

"Labour have no credibility?!" he states. Who does Green think he is kidding? I think they have a darn sight more than this dreadful coalition. People like me were conned into voting for them at he last electionunder the mistaken belief that they were a centre left party. No wonder Lindem support in polls is down to 15%. After a few years of this coalition and at next election I doubt they will be more than 10%. I shall never vote for them again.

Sam's picture

I don't get all the kicking of the liberal democrats, and what have the liberal democrats got to do with the validity of AV or PR. If your only reason for voting no is the policies of the libdems, your an idiot, vote on the issues.

Secondly, their is no point venting all frustration on the libdems. At the end of the day, it was the massive swing to the Cons from labour that led to the current coalition. The Liberals did the best they could with the hand they we're drawn.

If labour and their supports are constantly and unconstructively focusing their attacks on the libdems, their only going to alienate the libdems (next time round) and leave the Conservatives (whose votes Labour needs to win back) scot free.

Nick's picture

It strikes me that electoral reform should extend to coalitions and what rules should be applied to them in any forthcoming election. A coalition, such as this, should have to stand for election as a coalition rather than Tory or Liberal; they are after all the same thing.

If the coalition parties want to stand against each other, they should make it clear before an election. They are either united or divided, the public have a right to know how they intend to stand. It also strikes me that any future coalition should have an absolute maximum of 2 years before they have to go back to the public; they can then vote on what they think of them.

frances smith's picture

i think this early speculation is meaningless, i have a feeling were re turning to two parties politics. my response to the budget was to rejoin the labour party, though i hated brown. interesting thing is though its made politics more interesting, so maybe we are going to get a big society, but an anti coalition big society.................

John Green1's picture

It is not possible to predict the outcome of the vote on AV. Ed Balls on the Daily Politics programme admitted that his sudden conversion to a position of support for AV was simply a pre-election stance and that he would now vote against it. This suggests that many in the Labour Party will be in the “no” lobby.

The Labour Party should realise that proportional voting is not the big issue with most Liberal Democrat voters. Many of their more important concerns are addressed in the coalition manifesto. A recent ICM poll has shown that there is a greater than 80% support in the country for the new government’s fiscal plans. Many of these people will be Liberal Democrats.

The amazing speed with which this government has put together a progressive, reforming programme is providing cement for the coalition. An increasingly likely outcome following the next five years, in which the government deals successfully with the appalling mess left by Labour, is another Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition, whether or not proportional voting is adopted.

The current testosterone-fuelled attacks on Liberal Democrats by Labour will only accelerate its decline.

writeoff's picture

Hilarious, Mr Green! Progressive. Arf! But if Labour do back off from AV they really will shoot themselves and the population at large, in the foot.

Mark Edwards's picture

Spot on, Abby and Jeremiah! I'm soooo looking forward to the Lib Dems losing the AV referendum and realising they sold their souls for nothing - and then getting obliterated at the next election. They fell right into the Tory trap. It'll be sweet!

Why AV?'s picture

It's frustrating, unjust and patronizing that the only Alternative we will be allowed to vote for is the AV. I would like to see more open and informed discussion of the many, many other possibilities, and of the criteria that ought to be used to decide between them. Wikipedia on "Voting Systems" is useful; Michael Dummett's books more so.

jeremiah's picture

AV would damage Labour and help the Tories and Lib Dems.

The Tories are well, The Tories. I hate them but they are what they are.

The Liberals are the whores of British politics. With an STV system the Liberals would be in power permanently. If the Tories were losers they would side with Labour and vice versa.

AV can only be seen as the thin edge of the wedge and must be stopped. I want to see a Labour majority one day without having to cut a deal with those slimy supporters of the golden bird.

Latest tweets