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".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.