Contrasting poll results from YouGov and ICM on the AV referendum show how important it is avoid the referendum becoming a vote for or against the government rather than about the merits of the alternative vote compared to first past the post.
An ICM poll has found the Yes camp leading by 35% – 22% (with the balance don’t know or wouldn’t vote), which compares to a 35% – 41% deficit on the latest YouGov poll.
However, there is an important difference between the wording of the two polling questions, with YouGov’s question starting, “The Conservative-Liberal Democrat government are committed to holding a referendum…” whilst ICM has no mention of the Conservatives in its question which begins “A referendum is due to be held…”. Though there are also other differences in the wording, this looks to be the most important difference.
Meanwhile, there was good news for the Yes campaign yesterday with a wide cross-section of notable Labour Party figures signing a letter to the Guardian, including Alan Johnson, Ken Livingstone, Jon Cruddas and both Glenys and Neil Kinnock:
Next year we have the opportunity to vote for a fairer voting system – one in which everyone’s vote counts and every MP is required to get the backing of a majority of voters. It means that every Labour party member and supporter, in every seat in the country, can cast their vote for Labour and then mark any other preferences, knowing their vote won’t be wasted.
First past the post isn’t working. When just a few thousand people determine every election result in a few swing seats, the interests of the Labour party and the people we represent go unheard. The alternative vote means the majority get their voices heard; it will shut the door on extremist parties like the BNP.
You can read the full letter and see the signatories here. Thought not listed as a signatory, Ed Miliband earlier in the week also indicated his own support, confirming his earlier similar comments:
Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, will tomorrow join eight other shadow cabinet members in backing the Labour Campaign for the Alternative Vote, brushing aside concerns that support for AV would be seen as a distraction from Labour’s declared main task in May of doing well in the Scottish, Welsh and English local elections…
Miliband’s decision to put his name to the AV campaign is a sign of his willingness to combat the big Labour beasts who have come out against changing the voting system, including Lord Reid, David Blunkett and Margaret Beckett. (The Guardian)
UPDATE: For some further analysis of more recent polling since this post was written, see Anthony Wells’s post.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Temporary Traffic Order - Lower Pleasance
Calling them out
The railway wars come to Market Harborough
Constructive opposition: a phrase you will hear a lot
Nonconformistradical
Hugh Young
Roland
Kevin Hawkins
24 Comments
It’s a valid point Mark – and one that holds immeasurable consequences for the future of the Liberal Democrats.
In my opinion, the No camp only has to keep repeating “Liberal Democrat party” over and over again in every interview and linking it to the Yes campaign to succeed and keep FPTP.
NO2AV is still churning out the same old tired rhetoric and nonsense.
Rich – I agree. But that’s not the point.
The Lib Dems have been damaged so much by going into Coalition that all the No Camp has to do is repeat a combination of:
“Nick Clegg’s AV system…”
“AV, proposed by the Liberal Democrats…”
“Vote for AV and Nick Clegg/Lib Dems will continue to form hung parliaments…”
And FPTP will be retained. The polling is all over the place because the public at large aren’t the slightest bit interested at present. Once the messaging starts getting going (and don’t forget – Cameron really, really doesn’t want AV) they will seriously strengthen for a No vote.
It should be about the voting system, however it won’t be, the same as general elections should be about policies and not personalities.
The big advantage for the yes campaign is that plenty of people simply don’t care either way and won’t bother voting.
Whilst this shambolic coalition continues, and whilst there are prominent figures from both parties talking of election pacts, for the next General Election, People should never vote for AV
AV does not make smaller parties more accountable in Government, as they constantly use the excuse that they did not win a majority government and so therefore should not be expected to keep too election pledges.
Vote NO for AV
You’re not the first to point out the flaw in YouGov’s question. Such things as party ID and personalities do change peoples minds compared with just campaigning on the issues. No doubt both sides will try to use this to their advantave. To those who want to make it about personalities, go right ahead. I’ve seen the personalities behind the No campaign. They’re off to a bad start already.
@ Matt
And remind me of why FPTP has any redeeming points WHATSOEVER…
@Robert C
I have had the same arguments with you on numerous threads, i dont think i need to repeat them again, I have said why I believe AV is not a fairer system.
I have also made my feelings clear on why we should not support AV, as AV will potentially give us more coalitions, and that means more Liberal Democrat coalitions, And until Liberal Democrats are prepared to be responsible and accountable in government, then they have no place.
Get Nick Clegg to say he doesn’t want AV as it would be bad for him and his party.
The public would vote for it in droves!
An observation: going into coalition has clearly been bad for the Lib Dem’s current polling, not least because of the car crash of tuition fees. But the public reaction to the Coalition when it was formed was very positive. I’m not at all convinced that there are enough people who are anti-coalition (small c for the concept, big C for this particular government) to automatically give the No side a majority. Disraeli’s famous phrase “England does not love coalitions” was even then a partisan point, not the reflection of a national consensus.* I think that the battleground will be over voters who will support the system they think is best, so we need to focus the debate on the merits of AV and FPTP.
*Disraeli was trying to save his Conservative/Protectionist government’s budget. He had failed to win over support from Radical MPs and was now trying desperately to prevent the ex-Conservative Peelites joining the Liberals in defeating his budget. He lost…
By the time the vote happens, those who vote will understand perfectly well that Cameron is against AV, and Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg are in favour.
There will be a few Lib Dem haters who’ll vote against, even though they’ll be doing exactly what Cameron wants.
But I think most voters who want more progressive policies understand that a Tory majority government wouldn’t, for example, have raised capital gains tax, cut child benefit for higher rate tax payers, or cut taxes for the low paid.
It’s a political fact of life that this referendum is in fact going to be about ‘What do you think of Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems’. That’s just a fact of life. Rail against it as you will.
It’s the major reason I abhor referendums. They are almost never about the purported question on the ballot paper.
This one certainly won’t be.
I’m personally undecided on the referendum, but I think that a No vote looks the most likely outcome at this point.
The country as a whole will know that it’s got the backing of Nick Clegg, which has become a fairly toxic association for many. It’s a shame that an issue such as voting reform should be clouded by other concerns in this way.
For my part, I feel that FPTP is far from ideal. I can see that there are some significant problems with it. So change seems like a good idea. But I’m not sure whether AV offers anything better. It seems like a complicated alternative. I haven’t seen any of the advantages clearly explained yet. Hopefully things will become rather more clear in the coming months.
Based on today’s vote, I’ll be voting NO.
After experiencing this Coalition, I don’t want to experience any more.
how important it is avoid the referendum becoming a vote for or against the government…
What a fanciful piece of wishful thinking… we know we canvassed all your votes by promising you that we would be different, that we would we keep our promises ya ya blah blah and actually it really isn’t our fault that we took you all for a ride….
oh but by the way please reward us in not many weeks time by voting for our miserable little compromise…
As I’ve said before nice logical Lib Dem arguments about merits of a voting system are just not going to wash with a public that is not going to forgive that easily.
I have been swayed by the many arguments for AV.
So much that :-
I Pledge to vote for AV!
Signed Sk84goal
There that should guarantee my vote. Shouldn’t it?
You are living in cloud cuckoo land!
I personally agree that AV is an important move, for the reasons stated in the post, and also agree that the Yes Campaign needs to have distance from the current Coalition.
I am not, now, supportive of this government, yet initially I was, and I may become supportive again. The other possibilites than a Lib-Dem/Con coaltion were, frankly, even more scary than what we are experiencing now…and despite the anger of so many, a Conservative majority government would have been so, so much worse.
But AV, as the post commented, will give people the opportunity to vote for the party they want. Many in my consituency voted Lib Dem, but would have rather voted Labour. They feel betrayed by the Lib Dems. But AV would give such people the opportunity to vote Labour, with a back-up should Labour fail.
It is quite possible that AV will actually work against the Lib Dems, but on my part I believe that my representative should have a majority of the votes, not 40% or as sometimes happens, as low as 30% of the vote.
Ive said it on many threads.
AV is favourable to smaller parties and indeed the Liberal Democrats.
But AV does not make the smaller parties and indeed the Liberal Democrats, more accountable in Government.
Take this coalition for example. Liberal Democrats, constantly complain that they U-Turned on this, or U-turned on that, as they didn’t win a Majority Government, They are constantly complaining that they can not Stick to Election Pledges, as They didn’t win a Majority.
AV will result in more coalition governments, Liberal Democrats are quick to snap up the ministerial cars and the chance of power, but they shirk away from their accountability to stick to the pledges on which they were elected.
The current coalition is not transparent on any of it’s negotiations, and is in fact shroud in secrecy.
until Junior Parties can become accountable, transparent and responsible to govern,
AV must be voted down
matt, I wonder if you are confusing AV with the party list system if you think it helps small parties.
AV does not help smaller parties and it does not generally lead to coalition government. In Australia there are two main blocks: Labour and the permanent Lib/Nat alliance (Nationalists in Northern Territory, Liberals elsewhere). Apart from a solitary green there is no third party presence in the lower house. The current position is a rare fluke resulting from a virtual dead heat between Labour and the Lib/Nats.
What AV does produce though is more independent (or independent-minded) MPs: people who are genuinely popular locally and answer to their constituents rather than a party machine. Such people will never break a pledge to their constituents because they cannot rely on tribal voting to forget their misdeeds. If we had had AV we might not have gone to war in Iraq, and we definitely would not have voted to increase tuition fees last night.
Sorry I should have said Nationalists are mainly in Queensland (as well as Northern Territory). They are basically the Country party.
@Paul Kennedy
“If we had had AV we might not have gone to war in Iraq, and we definitely would not have voted to increase tuition fees last night.”
All the stats show that AV {Before last Nights Sabotage} tends to give Liberal Democrats more seats, which therefore would more than likely lead to more coalitions.
Just because AV would have given Liberal Democrats 70 seats at the last election, instead of the 57 that they got, does not mean that Liberal Democrats would be behaving any differently in coalition, to what they are now.
At the end of the day, Liberal Democrats are a Junior Party, and will always use excuses, and not want to be accountable as they did not win a majority.
In my opinion, all AV will do is give us more liberal Democrat MP’s, who may negotiate a few more ministerial positions, only to turn their backs on the electorate and the policies on which they where elected.
We should not try and compare the Australian voting system. with AV over here.
I lived in Australia myself for a while and my partner is Australian, so I have first knowledge of how a lot of Aussies view their voting system.
Australia has compulsory Voting, and they also have to Rank ALL candidates, Otherwise the vote is invalid and they can be fined for failing to vote properly.
It was a running joke, but sadly a common fact, that a lot of Australians would tick their 1st preference candidate, and then after that, they would shut their eye’s and randomly point on the ballot paper, in order to rank the remaining candidates. I can assure you, that is common Practice amongst them, as they resent the voting system that much.
Until Coalitions are transparent, and allows all coalition partners to disagree publicly on policies, Then Plural Politics does not work.
Until Negotiations between the coalition partners are transparent, so that the Public can see where each party stood at the start of a policy, and what we ended up at the end of the compromise. Then plural politics just does not work, As it will always appear that the Junior Party has been railroaded and then complaining that they don’t have a majority, so can’t deliver on promises
And whilst Plural Politics does not work, We should not change to AV
Whatever the question on the paper, people will be asking themselves just on equestion.
Can we trust those this will benefit ?
Answer = No
Now if it were STV it really would make a difference. As much as I am anti their policies this would lead to minority parties such as UKIP and the BNP having parliament seats. At that point they will be exposed to the type of scrutiny that will destroy their arguments.
It would also mean a big rise for the greens. I have many friends who wanted to vote Green but felt it a waste. AV only really helps the third party, and in Britain that is the party of “no more broken promises”. The party who can always be trusted to keep their word to the electorate.
If Lib Dems support it then it will not win. For a while they are electoral poison. This may pass. Most people are not that interested in FPTP v AV but the idea of more coalitions does not make them feel good. AV is unwanted by everyone but Clegg was too weak to insist on it as part of the coalition agreement or push for STV or some such that may have caught the public’s imagination. The sad truth is that Cameron is a much more able politician than Clegg and has maintained Tory popularity, developed the Lib Dems as hate figures and adroitly manoeuvred the electoral debate to his advantage. Just as a side thought how is the changing of boundaries likely to affect Lib Dems?
On the face of it, it would be difficult for the referendum to be about the government when the two parties in the government will be campaigning on opposite sides. The only way to “vote against the govenment” in the referendum would be not to vote.