Newsletter
Enter your email address here to receive updates from the team.
Poll
Jobs
Policy | Charity & Fundraising | Research | Education | Executive | Media | Social Care | Communications
User login
RSS“Vote Yes to damage Cameron”. A winning message?
Peter Mandelson and Alan Johnson urge Labour supporters to vote Yes to AV to hurt David Cameron.
By George Eaton Published 26 April 2011 10:47
With the Alternative Vote badly behind in the polls, Labour's big beasts have turned negative. In an interview in today's Independent, Peter Mandelson dispenses with high-minded arguments for reform and urges Labour supporters to vote Yes to "damage" David Cameron. He says:
Labour supporters need to use their noddle and ask themselves why Cameron is fighting so hard for a No vote. He's fighting for his party's interests but also to protect his own leadership. Labour has a chance to inflict damage on both. Cameron has been forced to intervene, to turn it into an intra-coalition partisan scrap in order to mobilise Tory support and Tory-supporting newspapers.
It's an important intervention, not least because the referendum is likely to be determined by Labour votes. As I've pointed out before, while Lib Dem voters are overwhelmingly in favour of reform (83 per cent to 17 per cent) and Conservative voters are overwhelmingly opposed (84 per cent to 16 per cent), Labour voters are split exactly down the middle (50 per cent to 50 per cent).
The Prince of Darkness may hold little sway over the electorate but his call to give Cameron a bloody nose, if taken up by the wider Yes campaign, could yet shift some votes in the final days of the campaign.
It's a message echoed today by Alan Johnson, who tells the Guardian: "What Labour voters need to ask is who wants them to vote No most. It's the Tories. They are bankrolling the No campaign because they know they have most to lose from a fairer voting system."
It won't be long before the Yes campaign is accused of diving into the gutter but there's an important distinction to be made between negative campaigning, a legitimate political tactic, and telling outright lies, as the No to AV campaign has.
In reponse to Mandelson, we can expect the 125 Labour MPs calling for a No vote to point out that they, and not the Tories, would now suffer under AV. The most recent YouGov poll on the subject showed that while Labour would win a majority of 60 under first-past-the-post, this would fall to 34 under AV. But such psephological considerations are of little importance to the Machiavellian Mandelson. As he points out, a Yes vote would lead to Cameron being branded a serial loser by his own side:
Labour people need to question why Cameron is suddenly so desperate for a No vote. Because a Yes vote would send the Tories into convulsions and greatly weaken him. Right-wing Tories have already been gravely warning it would make Cameron a "lost leader". That is something Labour supporters should bear in mind as they consider their vote.
History teaches us that the Tories rarely tolerate losers for long.
Add to this the growing fear of an early election under FPTP, which a cash-strapped and policy-free Labour Party would struggle to win, and a Yes vote starts to look like the rational choice for Labour tribalists. It remains to be seen, however, whether all of this is enough to offset the party's overpowering loathing for Nick Clegg.
Tags: AV referendum AV Peter Mandelson Electoral Reform Labour
Related articles
George Eaton is editor of The Staggers blog
Latest Posts by our Bloggers
From the magazine
-
Samira Shackle -
Ryan Gilbey -
Rebecca Stott -
Will Self -
Jason Cowley -
Sophie Elmhirst -
Martha Gill -
Rafael Behr -
George Eaton -
Rafael Behr
Elsewhere on the Blogosphere
- ConservativeHome
Could George Osborne's leadership ambitions deliver a referendum on the EU? - Political Scrapbook
Latest data shows recession worsen after Tory HQ attempt to spin figures - Coffee House
The coalition: two years in - Left Foot Forward
Spending watchdog slams Regional Growth Fund waste - James Kirkup
LOL: David Cameron's love-texts to Rebekah Brooks could mean voters laugh out loud – at his expense
Blogroll
- Alastair Campbell
- Benedict Brogan
- Coffee House
- Comment Central
- Conservative Home
- Dave's Part
- Gary Gibbon
- Guardian Politics
- Hopi Sen
- Iain Dale
- Labour List
- Labour Uncut
- Left Foot Forward
- Liberal Conspiracy
- Liberal Democrat Voice
- Luke Akehurst
- Neil Clark
- Next Left
- Our Kingdom
- Paul Waugh
- Penny Red
- Pickled Politics
- Political Betting
- Political Scrapbook
- Simon Fletcher
- The Bleeding Heart Show
- Think Politics
- UK Polling Report
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists
43 comments
LDs care about nothing more than electoral reform. No in combination with a mauling at local elections will prove fatal to Clegg, and spell the end or the beginning of the end of the coalition. A GE in 2012 or 2013 - through Cameron losing a vote of confidence - becomes very likely if the LDs fortunes recover to a small degree upon ditching Clegg and the coalition.
A Yes vote will keep the doubting LDs content and prevent the LDs pulling the plug until 2014 or 2015 when the boundary changes and AV will be in effect. A timing that Cameron and Clegg have been planning for. They'll be grumbling from some Cons, but nothing Cameron can't handle.
A GE in 2011, 2012 or 2013 is something Labour will relish. A GE delayed until 2014 or 2015 will be far harder, given new boundaries and a better chance of economic recovery by then.
Message fron Australia: we have a Labor government because of AV. Under FPTP we would have a Liberal/National coalition government who are now modelled on the US Republicans and who make Cameron's Tories look like a vicarage tea party. Vote for it because long-term it's good for Labour but consider it's the fairest method for single member consitituencies. The winner has to attract 50%+1 after distribution of preferences. Then vote to give Cameron a slap in the face but stick to principle.
@Phil and everybody who thinks like him:
Why, exactly, would the LibDems want a swift election after (a) having lost the referendum and (b) contributed to the cuts that made them so unpopular? It would make much more sense to stick with the Coalition until (or in the hope that) the economy picks up.
Mandelson is absolutely right on this one. Voting No to AV effectively helps the Tories. Those who want to punish the Lib Dems can do whenever the next general election takes place rather than preventing huge numbers of votes from counting through the retention of the current, unfair system.
I think Mandelson has overegged the machiavellian pudding this time. I will be voting NO, to hammer Nick Clegg for his duplicitous behaviour.
@Nionios
I agree that the Lib dems IFthey were clever would stick to the coalition until the end. At least they have influence of sorts in government rather than pick fromthe scraps when they were the minority.
I disagree that Labour voters should vote not in personal preference but in angst. This is a dirty Labour trick that proves that they are no better than the coalition in playing dirty tricks... New Labour = Old tories!. If they wanted to oust the coalition maybe they should think about writing their policies on A4. Maybe this shows how weak the Labour party is? they are scared and can't compete so they're using dirty tactics to split the government.
Mandelson & Co are "Old Labour" and do not represent me. I vote LABOUR at elections NOT for some 2nd. or 3rd. choice. Milliband is an idiot to support yes for the sake of a few grubby votes. Not the leader I voted for and I supported. Looking now for one in whom I can trust to delever a Labour Government. I note the minor parties support AV I wonder why? Because they have a better chance of being elected.
dan writes, "Proportional representation is the only voting system that gives equal value to every voter, it is democratic."
No, it gives even more power to party leaders to put their cronies on the party lists.
AV is no better than FPTP, and is often worse.
AV is not a proportional system. In three out of the past four British elections AV would have produced more disproportionate results than First Past the Post. And in landslide elections, AV would have dramatically exaggerated the winners’ majority. For example, in 1997, Tony Blair would have had a majority of 245 MPs under AV, despite only getting 43% of the vote.
Vote No!
@Stu,
I did not suggest that Labour voters should vote no "in angst". I do claim that (a) it is silly to vote 'no' next week in order to punish Clegg (because this would effectively enhance Cameron and the Tories) and (b) many on the Labour side of the No camp want to retain the power to blackmail the voters (it is either the Tories or Labour) when the combined share of these two 'saviours' of this country has declined from 90% in the 1950s to about 65% in 2010.
If you want Labour (or any party) to listen to your concerns, only a Yes vote makes sense next week.
How very negative of Johnson and Mandelson, only a year ago they were trying to get rid of Brown. The fact is a UK prime minister has very little international power any more. In Victoria's day, when Britain said
'jump' foreigners jumped!
First-past-the-post (FPTP) requires that to be elected to a public office the candidate simply has to secure more votes than the person who comes second. This results in some serious weaknesses.
A main problem is that it distorts public opinion by failing to ensure that the wishes of the electorate are arithmetically reflected in the composition of the legislative or executive branches. Composition of either branch is vulnerable to violent change under this system; creating a system of adversarial politics. Parties have less incentive to co-operate when the electoral system may translate them overnight from a minority to a majority.
Minority parties are unfairly treated and under-represented. In 2001 the Liberal Democrats won 18.3% of the national vote, this should have entitled them to 121 seats but they actually won 52. Expressing this figure another way:
It took 26,005 votes to elect a Labour MP.
It took 50,333 votes to elect a Conservative MP.
It took 92,601 votes to elect a Liberal Democrat MP.
This clearly contravenes the principle of 'one vote, one value'.
Wasted votes are also a result of FPTP. Areas may be considered 'safe' political territory for one party or another and this may discourage opponents of that party from voting on the grounds that if they do so their vote is effectively 'wasted'.
FPTP can be blamed for the downplaying of ideology and the two-party system as it discourages them from fragmenting. Ideology becomes diluted, obscured or played down in order for the parties to serve as vehicles capable of attracting a wide range of political opinions. So, a loss of distinct identity and the associated disinterest, low turnouts, and utilization of alternative ways (pressure group activity, direct action, etc.) to bring about political change.
Menzies Campbell, the former leader of the Lib Dems, recognises that AV could be the issue that breaks the coalition. Which vote would be the more likely to break the government? A vote for AV or a vote for FPTP? The LibDems are the weakest link in the coalition; the Tories are the larger party and more disciplined - so we should aim to hit the LibDems by voting No to AV.
Voting No will destabilise this destructive Coalition government. When we reject AV, the LibDems will see that they have gained absolutely nothing from selling themselves to the Conservatives. They will be split. Some LibDems will not want to prolong the agony of being the loathed government’s human shield, saying that the sooner they leave the Coalition, the less will be their electoral disaster. Others will cling to the government even more tightly, saying that the longer they stay in the Coalition, the better the chance that an economic revival will revive their chances of avoiding electoral disaster. The LibDems will disintegrate and so will the Coalition.
No to AV!
To late Mandy!!!
Mandy is confused- “Vote Yes to [will] damage Cameron”. Vote yes and Cameron will be Prime Minister for at least one more parliaamentary term.
Under AV, Mandy's good friend Gordon Brown could still Prime Minister. Running UK PLC into the ground!
The opposition to AV is the death rattle of Blairism, and the point at which the Blairites become financially dependent on the Conservative Party as redefined by David Cameron under the direction of Tony Blair and, not least, Peter Mandelson.
Yet here is Mandy, calling for a Yes vote. Mandy, whose place in a Cameron Cabinet was publicly announced when everyone who couldn't count was predicting an overall majority for the Heir to Blair.
Hell hath no fury...
Our system of flip-flopping between labour and conservative is not democratic at all.
Proportional representation is the only voting system that gives equal value to every voter, it is democratic.
AV is a step in the right direction, but its not enough. I'll vote Yes though.
There is some right guff being talked on this comments section. If the YES campaign needs to resort to convoluted political conspiracy theories then you know they have lost the plot. Vote NO to give Nick Clegg a black eye. Attack the weakest point of the coalition and then we can move on to the tories later.
@@Nionios
Thanks for clearing that up... i know it makes sense in what you say, the voters should at least read the small print and vote what they think is best instead of listening to these two old time wasters.
@David Vinter
the UK has little powers is because Brown decided to give away our veto, if we still had that at least we can tell the EU to f*off in regards to the cash we need to pay to bail out these countries risking our own economic recovery.
I not really bothered where Westminister Voting System is changed to the AV voting system.
The AV voting system is going to make very hard to get ride of Prime Minister such as Gordon Brown.
This is not a 'Tory Turnoil'It's a win win for the Tories!!! The AV system should give Prime Minister David Cameron at less another term as PM!!!! Fantastic!!!
I'd certainly take Mandelson's advice on how to vote. That's Mandelson friend of Osborne and bumsucker to the rich. I mean, he'd never have an ulterior motive, would he?
@Nionios
No-one is claiming that there is an easy way out of this for the Lib Dems. They are b******d whatever they do, so the only question is which route does them the least damage. Sticking with the coalition through thick and thin to 2014 or 2015 only makes sense if they have AV to help limit the damage. Remove that lifeboat and they just end up digging a bigger and bigger hole as time goes on.
Where did I mention a swift election? The Plan B goes like this. Ditch Clegg in favour of a new leader not tainted by the coalition (Fallon?). Leader signals a change of approach by immediately withdrawing from the coalition. Leave Cameron in charge of a minority government and use the opportunity to vote down NHS changes and much else from a right wing agenda. In doing so, regain a distinctive voice, and prepare the ground to rebuild bridges with Labour. And after a period of this, only then force the general election, perhaps around mid 2012.
Why should second or third preferences count at full value in the AV rounds? That is silly.
@garyboyd - Ah, you're a political warrior with some kind of super power beyond the rest of us mere mortals?
Or perhaps you too are interested in revenge?
If you're arguments were for the 100 year view, you might have a point. but this vote is so rare and so progressive that I thought I'd died and gone to a better place when the referendum was announced.
Now I feel like I've died and gone to that other place, where complete tits ruin it for everyone.
Like it or not, the demand for proportional representation won't go away. Not having it only perpetuates the Powers that be rubbish that we have now.
But also, will this vote be better organized than the last election? I can still see David Dimbleby on the BBC saying "this is just like the last banana republic election in the States".
Chris writes, "Wasted votes are also a result of FPTP."
No - there will always be winners and losers in any contest, under any voting system. If a candidate wins by 30,000 votes, are the extra 29,999 votes wasted?
Even in a seat won with 51% of the vote, can we really describe the other 49% of ballots as wasted? Moreover, AV will increase the real ‘wasted’ votes: spoiled ballots. In Australia, where they use the alternative vote, five times more ballots are spoiled and thrown away than the UK.
In Australia, turnout fell dramatically after the Alternative Vote was introduced. In the election preceding the use of AV, turnout hit 78%. In the first election under AV, this fell to 72%, and then fell further to 59% in the second AV election. As a result of this dramatic fall, Australia ended up making voting compulsory. Furthermore, there are also more than five times as many spoilt ballot papers in Australia than in the UK.
AV is no improvement on FPTP - Vote No.
“Vote Yes to damage Cameron”. A winning message?
What a statement. More politics of spite!! SOME on the political-left really do need to grow-up. AV will open a political Pandora's box, of political opportunity for right-wing and nationalist parties. It will be the Labour party that will be the greatest loser WHY? it's Labour's core vote, thats becoming increasingly fluid.
Forget the party politics and look at the facts. The Electoral Reform society websites helps.
The AV referendum is the biggest change to the way we elect our politicians since the electoral reform act. So the biggest opportunity to effect changes to our own democracy for nearly 200 years. Naturally the establishment wants to maintain the status quo rather than give more power to the electorate. And what is in all the papers and on all the other media in the run up to the AV vote. The suddenly announced Royal Wedding. If that is not an example of 'bread and circuses' being used to distract the masses from something that can only benefit them I do not know what is.
People take an interest. Acting in ignorance is throwing your own freedoms down the toilet.
Vote for AV to damage Cameron?
Infantile,brainless statement from a couple of morons who should know better.Cameron must laughing at this unexpected boost to his campaign.
@Martin Owens - I'm only interested in revenge my dear boy. My children will soon be going to University and will be landed with massive, mortgage sized debts. I want Nick Clegg to suffer for his deceit. Vote NO to AV!
How about : 'Vote YES ... beause its the right thing to do.' Instead of all this messing about.
Dave is pretty relaxed either way, win or lose. The voting systenm is not the main priority facing Britain at this present time. Peoples main concerns are with jobs and housing and making ends meet with hese savage cuts in the offing.
No, that is not LABOUR'S new line. It is Mandelson and Johnson's new line. Many people in the Labour party realise that AV is just a con to help the Libs. it's Nick Clegg we should be hurting, hurting so much that he gets kicked out as Liberal leader. Then we can think about things.
Polls that show what the alternative vote result in a general election would be shouldn't be taken too seriously. A new voting system introduces new tactics, and is very hard to predict. New Zealand changed systems fifteen years ago, admittedly to something more radical than AV, but there was no end to the surprises to foil the pundits, and this is still so, 15 years later.
Many will say, if Mandelson is for something, it must be right to be against it.
Voting No will destabilise this destructive Coalition government. When we reject AV, the LibDems will see that they have gained absolutely nothing from selling themselves to the Conservatives.
They will be split. Some LibDems will not want to prolong the agony of being the loathed government’s human shield, saying that the sooner they leave the Coalition, the less will be their electoral disaster. Others will cling to the government even more tightly, saying that the longer they stay in the Coalition, the better the chance that an economic revival will revive their chances of avoiding electoral disaster.
The LibDems will disintegrate and so will the Coalition.
@Michael Wilson - Does it feel good to stab the country in the back for your petty revenge?
The dark force has taken most people who comment on the New Statesman these days. Seemingly the country can go to hell, so long as they get to have their horrid, petty hatred of some pastoral nobody from a party that didn't even seem to matter until recently.
I do not agree. Yes to Instant Runoff.
@Martin Owens:
Well said, leave your repugnance for Clegg and Co and vote for the system that best represents your idea of a fairer system.
I agree totally, that the temptation to vote No- and stick it to Clegg must be overwhelming, but Cameron is and Osbourne are far worse. Imagine if the No vote wins (as looks likely) Cameron will wear that as a badge of honour, an endorsement from the electorate- imagine the sneering arrogance of Osbourne. Shit! they may even call an early general election, what would they be up against? The Lib Dems- forget it!! and a cash strapped Labour party, with no proper policy as yet and a leader still cutting his teeth.
A Tory majority would not be inconceivable. Heaven help us then!
I think either way, Cameron will call an early election, as it is probably their best chance this year and as capt-price says 'HEAVEN HELP US THEN!'
Herr Mandelson isn't bitter then?
I entirely take @Michael's point. We are given one untested change in the voting system, with no idea of the effects it will have. This system has not been examined or consulted over ... it was dreamed up from nowhere. Even Clegg didn't want it, but now he thinks it would work for him.
Referendum defeated, snap FPTP election resulting in Tory majority, re-elected five years later when the economy isn't so bad, and then for another ten years.... haven't we been here before? Who'll care then what happened to Clegg, or even remember who he was? But never mind, we'll be able to march up and down chanting 'Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, out, out out!' all over again - so much more satisfying than being in government, don't you think?
It may be that the only chance we have of avoiding a general election this year is to cross everything and hope the "Yes" vote wins (futile perhaps)
Check the odds from the bookies, they've been cut from 3-1 to 2-1. Bookies rarely get odds wrong.
The omens are there.
A "No" vote, the Royal Wedding, decent weather, a skint Labour party, a loathed Lib Dem leader.
Worth a tenner?
I came across some rather intriguing satistics a couple of days ago, and would be grateful if anyone could clarify them.
According to what I read, at the last general election, 125 Tory MPs, 76 Labour MPs and 12 LibDem MPs won their seat with more than 50% of the vote, which means approximately 40% of the current Tory MPs, 30% of current Labour MPs and 20% of current LibDem MPs would be unaffected by a switch to AV.
Makes me wonder why on earth the Tories are so hostile to AV. Having said that, I`m not 100% sure if my stats are correct, can anyone out there clarify it for me.
Post new comment