The AV referendum is doomed

By Richard Watts and Graham Copp

Former senior staff members from both sides of the Europe debate believe the AV referendum is almost certain to be lost. Labour should be careful not to go down with the ship.

Before working together in Islington both of us worked on putative referendum campaigns on Europe. Richard worked in various positions for the Britain in Europe campaign, which was established to become the “Yes” campaign had held a referendum on joining the Euro. Graham worked in both the campaign for a referendum on the EU Constitution and the subsequent “No” campaign.

Because the British experience of referenda is so limited, both sides undertook some separate work with a team of international referendum experts, including people who had worked on the various Danish referenda on the EU, the (all white) South African referenda on ending apartheid, the Northern Irish Good Friday agreement vote and many initiatives and referenda in American states.

What came out of this was the very clear message that the referendum strongly tends to favour the status quo and that unless change is only possible if certain ‘key tests’ are met.

American political consultants working on referendum campaigns use a ‘Golden Rule’ to know what stand a chance of winning. The Golden Rule is that for a referendum to have a credible chance of passing at the start of the campaign Yes needs polling at least around 60%, No must be polling below 30% and the ratio between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ support needs to be at least 2:1.

Before the start of the formal campaign the pro-AV position is nowhere near meeting the Golden Rule. The pro-AV campaign had started well ahead; YouGov put support for ‘yes’ at 44% and opposition at 34% when they first asked voters about their referendum voting intentions in June. The lead that AV enjoyed has quickly been whittled away – already by the end of August the opponents of AV have overtaken the supporters 39 to 37%.

Referendums are often defined by the government proposing them. It’s no coincidence that the vast majority of successful referendums are held in the first year of a government’s first term of office. The referendum on establishing the Welsh assembly is commonly thought to have only been won because the early popularity of Tony Blair’s government overcame scepticism about the Assembly. Voters in the North East held very similar opinions to the Welsh when they too were offered the chance of an Assembly in 2004. But by this time the government lacked the political capital to take voters with them and the Assembly was defeated by a massive margin.

It’s nomsurprise therefore that Nick Clegg is trying to rush the AV referendum through, but he’s already leaving it late.

Referenda very often become a vote of confidence in the government itself. If the referendum when the cuts are really biting next May, it’s easy to envisage a scenario where the argument “vote no to send a message to about cuts” has a lot of resonance, particularly among Labour voters.

The effect of this is exaggerated because it is very difficult for Yes campaigners to engage the public with non-economic issues, so voters are more likely to follow the voting recommendation of people they trust. Although this may not be the case next May, the opponents of AV in the Tory party are enjoying high polling scores, while the position of the main supporters – the Lib Dems – is increasingly dire. This would suggest that more people will follow a recommendation to vote no than to vote yes.

Except in some referenda, such as that to establish the Scottish Parliament where, as John Smith said, change was “the settled will of the Scottish people”; the public’s default option is to vote no. This means that the onus is on the Yes campaign to win the case for change, which is extremely difficult. It is very easy for No campaigners to bog the referendum down in arguments about the process of the campaign, for example, the cost of setting up the North East assembly became one of the biggest issues in that vote. All No campaigners need to do is muddy the waters because they can be confident that the vast majority of undecided voters that actually turn out will opt to stick with the status quo.

The strong evidence from referendum campaigns both the UK and the rest of Europe is that the only arguments for change that resonate with voters are economic. Unless the pro-AV campaign can conclusively show people they will be economically better off as a result of voting ‘yes’ it is difficult to see their arguments getting enough traction to break through. Certainly, their early efforts show all the signs of falling to grasp the kind of argument they need to make. Mark Littlewood make a series of similar points here.

Whatever view one takes about electoral reform, it would be an enormous and avoidable own goal the newly elected Labour leader to introduce themselves to the public by supporting a losing cause in the AV referendum.