Support 100 years of independent journalism.

  1. Spotlight
  2. Elections
27 April 2010

Labour’s failure on electoral reform

Peter Mandelson is in denial.

By Mehdi Hasan

At this morning’s Labour Party press conference, I asked Lord Mandelson, the party’s election campaign chief, how Labour can claim to advocate root-and-branch political and constitutional reform when it is offering a referendum on changing the electoral system from first-past-the-post (FPTP) to the Alternative Vote (AV).

As an analysis in today’s Independent makes clear, AV can, on occasion, be more disproportional than FPTP. The article’s author, Professor John Curtice of Strathclyde University, says:

Under the Alternative Vote the Liberal Democrats would fare much better. Under this system voters place candidates in rank order – 1, 2, 3 and so on. If no candidate wins 50 per cent of the first-preference vote, then the votes of candidates at the bottom of the poll are redistributed in accordance with those voters’ second preferences, and so on, until someone passes the 50 per cent mark.

Nick Clegg’s party tends to be everyone’s second choice. As many as 68 per cent of Labour supporters say they would give a second-preference vote to the Liberal Democrats, as do 41 per cent of Conservatives.

Sign up for The New Statesman’s newsletters Tick the boxes of the newsletters you would like to receive. Quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics from the New Statesman's politics team. The New Statesman’s global affairs newsletter, every Monday and Friday. The best of the New Statesman, delivered to your inbox every weekday morning. The New Statesman’s weekly environment email on the politics, business and culture of the climate and nature crises - in your inbox every Thursday. A handy, three-minute glance at the week ahead in companies, markets, regulation and investment, landing in your inbox every Monday morning. Our weekly culture newsletter – from books and art to pop culture and memes – sent every Friday. A weekly round-up of some of the best articles featured in the most recent issue of the New Statesman, sent each Saturday. A newsletter showcasing the finest writing from the ideas section and the NS archive, covering political ideas, philosophy, criticism and intellectual history - sent every Wednesday. Sign up to receive information regarding NS events, subscription offers & product updates.

So if the Liberal Democrats are running second in a constituency, they can hope to leapfrog into first place on the back of second preferences cast by third-placed Conservative or Labour supporters.

Content from our partners
How do we secure the hybrid office?
How materials innovation can help achieve net zero and level-up the UK
Fantastic mental well-being strategies and where to find them

The party might win up to twice as many seats — 217 — as they would under the current system.

Yet it would be Labour, with 238 seats, that would still be the largest party. The Conservatives, meanwhile, would be a poor third with just 163 seats.

. . . So, under Labour’s proposed alternative, not only would the party that was third in votes still come first in seats, but in addition the party that came first in votes would be a poor third in seats. One wonders whether voters will regard this as an improvement.

Indeed. And Curtice is not alone in his analysis of AV and its flaws — Roy Jenkins’s report on electoral reform, commissioned by Tony Blair and published in 1998, concluded that the Alternative Vote would have delivered an even bigger majority to Labour in 1997.

This morning, however, Mandelson chose to fob me off with a line about Labour being the only party offering a referendum on electoral reform. True. But what kind of reform? Is AV fair enough? Does it go far enough? And, perhaps above all else, will it be enough to buy Lib Dem support in a hung parliament? I very much doubt it.