Would an AV referendum on election day save Labour?
The Guardian today has an interesting report about Tessa Jowell pushing for a referendum on electoral reform on election day, backed up with some polling findings from some private polling by the Electoral Reform Society. By the wonders of the BPC disclosure rules the actual polling is no longer secret, and is now up on the YouGov website.
The Guardian's article suggests giving a referendum on election day could put Labour on the verge of being the biggest party. There really is very little in the actual polling to suggest such a massive impact.
There was clearly a voting intention question asked in the YouGov poll, since it gives a split by it. Depending on how much support they found for others though, it equates to a Conservative lead of 12 or 13 points. The projected seat shares given in the Guardian article are bonkers - if nothing else, they add up to 649, leaving just 1 seat between the SNP, PC, independents and all the Northern Ireland parties. The most likely explanation I can see is that someone has mislabeled "Lib Dem and others" as just Lib Dems - if so, this is roughly the equivalent of a Conservative lead of 9 points, so doesn't seem related to the shares in the YouGov poll.
The first question mentioned in the report is about a referendum on AV making people more likely to vote Labour appears to be the question YouGov asked for the Electoral Reform Society back in August, which I dealt with back here.
In short are you more or less likely to vote for X if they do Y questions are of very little worth. "More likely" is very undemanding, it doesn't mean you are definitely going to switch, and people tend to use it just to express support or opposition to the thing being tested. It also gives false prominence to an issue which in reality would be thrown into the mix with other (normally more salient!) issues like the economy, crime, unemployment and so on.
Moving onto the new questions published today, YouGov asked whether people would prefer FPTP, the alternative vote system (which was explained in the question) or a system of proportional representation. The answers were actually pretty balanced - 39% of people preferred the status quo, 22% each backed AV and PR.
YouGov then asked a list of questions on how people would react to the way David Cameron responded to a
referendum. Boiling it down to the key figures, if David Cameron opposed holding a referendum on election day, 1% of Labour and Lib Dem voters would be much more likely to vote for him. 5% of Tory voters would be much less likely to. If David Cameron opposed changing the voting system, 1% of Lib Dem voters would be much more likely to vote for him. 6% of Tory voters would be much less likely to.
So 5% or 6% of current Conservative voters say they would be much less likely to vote Tory if they opposed the referendum, or the change in the electoral system. With the Conservatives on 41% or thereabouts, that's 2.5% of the vote - definitely not to be sniffed at. In reality though questions like these overemphasise one particular policy, not everyone who says likely would actually change, and since only the Conservatives were asked about we don't know how many voters Labour might be losing in response to their stance.
Regular readers will know that my view is that party image matters far more to voting intention than specific policies, so from my view far more interesting were the next set of questions. These asked how people would view David Cameron if he opposed or supported a referendum/change in the electoral system. In short people associated supporting the referendum and a change in the system with being "forward thinking", but also with being "opportunistic". People associated opposing the referendum and a change in the system with being "resistant to change" and "stuck in his ways".
Again, what we can't see here is the other side of the coin, how would people view Gordon Brown if he called a referendum on the electoral system on polling day? Even so, I think it tells us enough to see what the balance would be - Labour would call a referendum hoping it would make Gordon Brown appear forward thinking and David Cameron appear backwards looking and resistent to change, and this polling suggests it would do so (though of course, we can't tell to what degree). The counter to it though would be to what extent it made Gordon Brown look opportunistic or self-interested.
=
=
=
(As an aside, I'm still surprised that those in favour of electoral reform are supporting the idea of a referendum on election day so energetically. It will not be an easy referendum to win at the best of times - there isn't a large majority in favour of AV as we can see from this very poll. With this timing it would be extremely vulnerable to a narrative that it is Labour gerrymandering the system before they lose office.
Furthermore, it will get tangled up with the election campaign itself - the referendum will influence the election, but the election will influence the referendum too, and the election is by far the bigger game. A YES vote will be associated with a moribund and unpopular Labour government, a NO vote with an energised and resurgent Conservative party. My view is that it would be very difficult for the YES campaign to win the referendum if was held on election day, probably killing the issue for a generation.
The image questions in the poll show why it is a attractive idea to the Labour party, but I'm surprised the ERS are pushing for a referendum under what would probably be very disadvantageous circumstances for the YES vote. Then again, I suppose the alternative is what the Guardian says John Denham is suggesting - passing legislation now for a referendum on PR in a year's time, I think the YES campaign would stand a much better chance of winning it then, but the ERS would face the the risk that David Cameron would win power and cancel the referendum (politically damaging, but it might be a price he was willing to pay to keep FPTP).)
UPDATE: Before anyone gets excited about the voting intention figures, the poll was conducted at the end of October/beginning of November, so there's nothing new here on that front.
