The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

AV and the leadership conundrum

What referendum voting tells us about Nick Griffin, Nigel Farage, Alex Salmond and Ed Miliband.

By Jon Bernstein Published 30 April 2011 16:28

The campaign ahead of next Thursday's referendum on the Alternative Vote has produced some decidedly odd bedfellows.

The sight of Labour's Alan Johnson and the Green MP, Caroline Lucas, sharing a podium with Ukip's Nigel Farage was disconcerting enough, but it was nothing compared to the pre-Easter affair that brought together Prime Minister David Cameron and "Labour's big beast" (© all newspapers) John Reid. In a campaign characterised by bogus and lacklustre arguments on both sides, the Cameron-Reid thesis that AV threatens the fabric of British democracy was a new low.

Another oddity has been the failure of party leaders to lead. As was soon noticed when we released some "top lines" from our New Statesman/ICD poll on Thursday, British National Party voters were "defying" Nick Griffin's leadership and backing AV by 72 to 18 per cent. It was less noticed that Ukip voters were rejecting AV (64 per cent against, 35 per cent for) at exactly the time Farage was appearing on stage with the Yes camp.

Some supporters of the No campaign seized on the former figures as evidence that AV does indeed benefit the BNP. That's not quite the case. Once again they have conflated the party with those inclined to support it.

Another interpretation of the 72 per cent figure is that BNP-inclined voters are making their decision on AV based on self, not party, interest. Griffin is against AV because it gets him no nearer representation at Westminster; BNP supporters are in favour because it allows them to register their protest (however objectionable it is to the rest of us) but still have a say by backing a mainstream party as a second preference.

There's an inherent logic here which explains why the vast majority are unwilling to follow the BNP leadership. It is the same logic that explains why 63 per cent of Greens, too, back AV, albeit in line with their leadership. This is not about left and right.

It is only surprising that Ukip supporters aren't using the same thought process. But perhaps they consider themselves not as a fringe party but as a major force awaiting a breakthrough. In the 2010 general election, Ukip garnered 919,486 votes, giving it by far the biggest share of all the minor parties.

The Scottish National Party provides a penultimate example of leadership and support base at odds. Alex Salmond has agreed to back AV despite some misgivings (he doesn't think it goes far enough and worries that multiple votes on 5 May will take the spotlight off Holyrood elections on the same day), but 53 per cent of likely SNP voters will put a cross in the box marked "No" on Thursday, with only 30 per cent voting Yes to AV.

Which leaves us with the strange case of the Labour Party. Long since split on the merits of Nick Clegg's "miserable little compromise" – and on electoral reform more broadly – Labour is effectively unleadable on the issue. Political expediency may have prompted Gordon Brown to back an AV referendum just before last year's election, but it was hardly a full-throttled endorsement – his deathbed conversion was so close to his own political expiry that the necessary legislation failed to make it on to the statute book in time.

Long-held positions on electoral reform among MPs and the party in the country alike meant that AV was always going to be the ultimate free vote; nothing whippable here. Nevertheless, that Miliband has failed to convince his party's followers to back him – or, at the very least, his inability to move polling numbers incrementally – is a concern. Among those certain to vote, there remains a 5-point advantage for the Noes.

Perhaps he can turn all those undecided Labour supporters – a sizeable 12 per cent of those certain to vote and 18 per cent of all respondents – into pro-AVers between now and Thursday. If he can, he might just cause, six days out, a major upset and reap the political dividend.

More likely, the Labour vote will remain split, marginally favouring the status quo. While his discomfort won't be as a acute as Clegg's, Miliband will nevertheless have questions to answer.

The kind of unholy alliance that paired Cameron with Reid helps explain away some of this, but not all.

Tags: Electoral Reform

More from Jon Bernstein

17 comments

Sat, 2011-04-30 23:34 — willies (not verified)

The samples sizes on the poll cross breaks for the small parties is insignificant being in the tens. This is silly it cant tell us anything,

Sun, 2011-05-01 10:11 — PeteyMcPeterson

I'm forced to conclude that those who are aginst A.V. either have a vested interest or have failed to understand the situation.

Vote yes to A.V. It might not be perfect, but it's definately a big improvement.

Sun, 2011-05-01 10:20 — Luddite (not verified)

It's not the voting method, it's the party system thats outmoded. It's all about political dogma and the party whip. All members of parliament, should be independent and free thinking individuals, from all walks of life. That would give a genuine representation of the will of the people.

Sun, 2011-05-01 13:31 — paul barker (not verified)

Milliband can turn this round. If he would appear on a platform alongside Farage, Lucas & Clegg & appeal for change, that could transform the whole atmosphere.

He would also make himself look like a statesman, a possible PM.

Sun, 2011-05-01 15:29 — Hamish (not verified)

That's a good point about BNP supporters, and it's not surprising that the same doesn't apply to UKIP. UKIP are much moderate than the BNP and as such would advantage from a lot of people choosing them as their second choice, whereas hardly anyone would put the BNP second.

Mon, 2011-05-02 05:27 — elrob

AV wins over the current system as it allows us (the voters) to vote for whom we want, even if it is for a candidate who can't win. We then get another vote to choose whom we'd like to win among those who can win.

More power to us.

The yes campaign had two huge obstacles. British inertia, aningrained fear of the unknown, and of course, Clegg. Too many people are utterly pissed off with him. Were he to greet you with "nice day", many would doubt that the sun was actually shining.

Sat, 2011-04-30 17:54 — Tern (not verified)

So the people are predominantly greedy and deluded that their own party will some day triumph on its merits then deserve FPTP'as unfairness as a tool to help it wield absolute power. That's the explanation, isn't it? Even folks who epxerience abuse of power dpon't want to give up the abusability's existence if they have any dream instead of eventually getting to make use of it themselves. A lesson in humna rubbishness to echo down the centuries.

Sat, 2011-04-30 18:23 — Gracie

Personally I think you are reading far too much into the "split" vote in the labour party. The vote is split not because we reject leader Ed Miliband, the vote is split because "most" perhaps genuinely feel that AV will harm him and his chances of becoming PM, it is because we want to see him installed in number 10 that we are voting 'No'.
I honestly do not think that Cameron is bothered by a 'yes' vote, he knows if this is the case he stands to win, all the recent bluff and bluster and political posturing and fighting was just a show for the public to help dig Clegg out of a hole with the electorate and his own supporters and the so-called “public tiff” was staged purely for the right of the Tory party.
If you want to question leaders, question David Cameron whom many think is lying to, manipulating and deliberately misleading the British public?
If you look under the surface at other issues and policy changes going on, recently we had Cameron publicly berating Gordon Brown and saying he was going to block his "application" (if he has applied) to the IMF. This is not a one off, there are other policy changes afoot too, like the five year fixed term parliaments and changing the constitution so more votes are needed for a successful vote of "no confidence", changing the boundaries to make it harder for labour MPs to get elected and getting rid of more labour MPs than Tories in the reduction in the size of parliament. Also Cameron has already changed the dynamics of the House of Lords, this is central to his plan, he needs the Lords to be weighted on his side. Before the coalition, the House of Lords was basically even, (despite what people say about Blair’s cronies, they only evened it up from a top heavy Tory establishment) since Cameron has come in he has been stuffing it full of his Tory financial backing cronies, why? He never does anything unless there is an ulterior motive! Just after this government came to power Nick Clegg is on record as saying that if we have AV and we may never see another labour government for at least another 50 years (and he wonders why he cannot obtain all of labour voter's support?) This is basically because AV + Parliamentary and Boundary changes + reduction in the number of (mainly) labour MPs + any labour voters he can get over to the Tories = Tory governments for the foreseeable future with Clegg acting as “Kingmaker” for as long as he wants.
Cameron appears to be using the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill in order to try and eradicate labour from the political scene this is not a conspiracy theory the proof is there for all to see. What is happening is profoundly undemocratic. Cameron cannot actually come out and say it, but I suspect that he actually wants AV, it suits his purposes *for now*. If AV comes in the Tories will water their policies down to attract Labour and Lib Dem voters creating even more of plateauing out of "left and leftish" votes.
Every time Cameron is in the house he lies, he misrepresents, he misquotes and he deliberately misleads the British public. This latest thing where Brown and Blair were left of the royal wedding guest list, this is Cameron working with the "establishment" to cold shoulder labour and destroy Labour's image in the public eye. Cameron is a dangerous megalomaniac, he wants to stay being PM so badly there is nothing the man will not do or say to obtain that goal. I just wonder when it will be that people actually wise up to the dangerous and profoundly undemocratic game he is playing. No matter what politics people are, they should be extremely worried about what Cameron is trying to do to our democracy. David Cameron is a one man affront to all that is decent in British politics.

Sat, 2011-04-30 18:40 — Tim Longman (not verified)

If UKIP does emerge as a major force and splits the right of centre vote in the UK what's the betting the Conservatives will suddenly decide AV is actually quite a good idea after all?

Sat, 2011-04-30 19:34 — swatantra nandanwar

The AV Campaign won the argument but may lose the vote because of tactical voting. The whole issue has been clouded by bluffs and double bluffs, scares and double scares, and alliances forged between disreputable people on the NO side, that the original question has been buried in a sea of dust.
Its an absolute disgrace.

Mon, 2011-05-02 12:55 — SL (not verified)

I think drawing a link between politician's opinions on AV and their success or failure of their leaders is rubbish. The point of these types of votes is that the most unlikely of people join together on an issue that they support on their own arguments, not that of a party. For you to suggest that's not the case shows you don't understand.

The fact of the matter is that the LibDems have always been pro-voting reform, the Tories have always be anti-reform and Labour has always been more or less split. The reason most parties have a different line is down to what they "personally" believe is good for the party. The Tories know that they will almost certainly *never* rule the country alone again and they have no right-wing partners who they could go into government with. The LibDems are pro-reform because they have the most to gain - most people would put LibDem 2nd on the ballot paper, especially in Tories strong-holds where the Labour party don't even bother to campaign. The Labour party are split because why they are more likely to rule alone one day (although it is still unlikely any party would get 50% of the vote on the first count) it also means they would have to make deals with the other parties, who granted they have more in common with, but most MPs in the Labour Party fear AV would threaten Ed Milliband's chances of being PM. Labour could still will the first-past-the-post vote, just as the Tories could. The Lib Dems are the only ones who lose out in first-past-the-post.

The irony is that is AV doesn't pass then this could mark the end of the coalition and David Cameron's reign, as well as Nick Clegg's leadership of the Lib dems. No one outside the cabinet ministers are happy with the coalition and only stuck with it this long for the vote on AV. If it doesn't pass, the Lib Dems won't have a reason to stay. Even Clegg seems to know this even if Cameron is trying to convince himself it won't happen.

Sat, 2011-04-30 20:25 — Gracie

@ Tim Longman.....I think Cameron already thinks AV is a good thing and is praying for it!

@ swatantra nandanwar
I don't really agree with you, I think that David Cameron AND Nick Clegg hijacked this referendum and started playing political football with it for their own political ends, thr pair of bell ends.

Sat, 2011-04-30 21:32 — Spilliam Wooner

Either AV advances the cause of minority parties or it doesn't. If it does then it is more democratic than FPTP. But we have to take the rough with the smooth if we want a better democratic system and accept that some parties who's policies we disapprove of may do as well as those of whose policies we are in favour. If AV doesn't advance the cause of minority parties then it is unfit for purpose (all other things being equal) and has no merit except as a stepping stone to a full proportional system.

Those in the 'no' camp who say that AV will advance the cause of the BNP without carrying this assertion to its logical conclusion can only be scaremongering in the belief that other more 'undesirable' parties (presumably from the left of the political spectrum) will also benefit, and that is profoundly undemocratic.

Sat, 2011-04-30 21:47 — Spilliam Wooner

I've said elsewhere that Conservatism is as much a psychological type as it is a political perspective. The current AV debate is a rare chance for us, the electorate, to identify those ostensibly on the political who are in fact of a conservative disposition and therefore unlikely to advance a left leaning agenda even if elected by a left wing vote. Look out for token leftism.

Sat, 2011-04-30 22:04 — 9xzulug

the AV+ referendum has without doubt put the cat amoungst the pigeons it's made our politicians sit up & take notice,that the electorate can be fooled some of the time but can't or won't be fooled all the time.many have forgotton a fundemental point in that the debate in regards to how we came about to have a coalition government.NO ONE PARTY WON.labour made mistakes but nearly won,tories never won because they weren't trusted,and the party that decided who took power actually lost votes compared to the previous election.THAT IS WHY WE AS A NATION NEED AV+