Purchase today

Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.

Jobs

User login

The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

RSS

12-point lead opens up for AV

One in four already want electoral reform on 5 May.

By Jon Bernstein Published 19 February 2011 11:57

That the Times is not keen on the Alternative Vote is clear by the way it covers a specially commissioned Populus poll in today's paper. A sceptical leading article (£) and a piece of commentary by the deputy political editor, Sam Coates, entitled "Doubt creeps in when voters are told what AV change will mean" (£) disguise a stunning finding: 41 per cent of respondents said they would vote for AV. That's a 12-point lead over first-past-the-post.

Now there are, as Coates points out, many caveats. First, 30 per cent of voters are undecided, giving both the No and Yes campaigns plenty of influencing to do. Second, the 41 per cent is based on those answering the question that will be presented to them on referendum day, 5 May. Specifically:

Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

As the Times discovered, when you asked a slightly more involved question the numbers changed. Populus asked a second group whether it wanted a system where

voters number the candidates they like in order of preference, and the candidate who gets more than half the support of the voters in the constituency is elected.

In this instance, 43 per cent said they would stick with first-past-the-post while 29 per cent said they wanted a change to AV. Intriguing stuff, but it doesn't alter the fact that based on the question that will be asked, four in ten are already in favour. There is little doubt that, had the poll been commissioned by a paper more open to AV, the nature of the coverage would have been very different.

Regardless, the pro and anti campaigns now know what they need to do. In the words of Mike Smithson at PoliticalBetting:

the big challenge for YES is explaining the change in a way that doesn't sound threatening. For NO it is the opposite.

Those battle lines were drawn yesterday in almost concurrent speeches by Nick Clegg and David Cameron. My colleague George Eaton offered a point-by-point rebuttal of the Tory leader's speech. Read it.

UPDATE: Sam Coates has been in touch to say he thinks I've been a little unfair in my representation of the Times coverage. He writes: "I made the strong findings for the pro-AV camp the top of the story. I urge you to reread the text." Well, you can do so here, if you can get over the paywall. The quality of the analysis wasn't really my point; it was the way the poll was covered – the headline, the leading article and the difficulty (online at least) to find the story at all. Anyway, happy to reflect Sam's views here.

More from Jon Bernstein

View the discussion thread.

11 comments

Sun, 2011-02-20 11:40 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

swantantra nandawar

I agree with most of your post but we do need less far less MPs at Westminister than the tories are advocating. With the devolved Assemblies and the Scottish Parliamemnt dealing with so many devolved matters do we really need hundreds of these back benchers with their massive saleries and expenses?

My local MP actually claimed £4.600 for the months of September/October.

David Mundell Tory Dumfriesshire claimed £22,000 and Jim Murphy Lab East Renfrewshire claimed £19,300 for the same period.

I'm sure that these sorts of outrageous claims are also being made by Councillors. The ruling classes either Tory Labour or LibDem always look after their own!

Sun, 2011-02-20 14:25 — Andrew James (not verified)

If they really want to have political reform and more democracy then they should campaign to get rid of the unelected house of lords. It is pathetic that a bunch of friends and cronies of those in power get any say on how our country is run

Mon, 2011-02-21 17:10 — Union Steve

Vote yes if you want more of Mr Pledge. Just think about it!!!

Tue, 2011-02-22 21:41 — Reginald-Fah-fah

This is my opinion on AV:

http://www.newstatesman.com/polls/2929

Nick Clegg can stick it were the sun don't shine!

Sat, 2011-02-19 14:19 — Graeme (not verified)

I expect that Clegg's advocacy will see AV support dwindle, and rightly.

Sat, 2011-02-19 14:33 — Andrew Murray (not verified)

The second version of the question seems a pretty poor definition of AV if you didn't already understand the redistribution process.

Sat, 2011-02-19 15:46 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

How will AV voting affect the apex at the top of the political pyramid - the Monarchy?
Most political analysts claim the parties which formed the Coalition government received whispered advice from this unelected source. Every element in the political sphere needs looking at. Oh, I almost forgot; the House of Lords! It still has its own club rules and isn't about time it was incorporated into standard political life. Incidentally, does 'Black Rod' control security matters at the House of Commoners? King Charles still seems to have a hold on the personnel. Palace? Of Westminster? Sounds regal!

Constitutionalist

Sat, 2011-02-19 16:15 — swatantra

This is great news for the AV camp.Its seems that our arguments are getting through, despite the negative media assault on AV.
Its all about increasing democratic particpation, not about minority fringe lunatic getting a toehold on the poitical ladder. There will always be the oddballs around; we have quite a few already in the conventional Party set ups.
The pity is that the Govt foolishly tied the AV question with reducing the number of constituencirs. But the Govt will make a dogs breakfast of reorganisng the constituencies and will end up deeply embarassed, but the AV issue comes up once in a liftime. We have to sieze the moment now.

Sat, 2011-02-19 20:45 — Alun (not verified)

There's a tendency for people who say they're unsure about how they're going to vote in a referendum to actually vote against whatever is proposed.

Sat, 2011-02-19 21:26 — kevin (not verified)

entertainingly now the times is behind a firewall, it no longer contributes to the debate

Sat, 2011-02-19 21:46 — Peter Davidson

Dear Mr Bernstein,

For an article focusing specifically on the actual question appearing on the ballot paper, I'd have thought you might have at least checked the veracity of the precise wording?

You claim that the ballot paper question will be;

"Do you want the United Kingdom to adopt the 'alternative vote' system instead of the current 'first past the post' system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?"

Yet I distinctly remember seeing a Joshua Rozenberg Guardian article in which he reported that the question had been redrafted, following criticism to;

"At present, the UK uses the "first past the post" system to elect MPs to the House of Commons. Should the "alternative vote" system be used instead?"

So I checked the Electoral Commission and sure enough the actual question is the latter, not the former, as you claim - source URL:
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/upcoming-elections-and-r...

Apologies for my apparent pedantry but this article does focus specifically on the wording of the question and its potential to influence the outcome - therefore I'd have thought it vital to reproduce that wording faithfully?