Here is a referendum recipe for disaster. Choose an issue that no one cares about, get the most unpopular man in Britain to champion it, antagonize the few people who might support it and hold it on a day when everyone will use it to kick the most unpopular man in Britain. Welcome to the 2011 referendum on the alternative vote.
With the benefit of a week’s hindsight, it’s clear that the referendum was going to be hard to win, but there were some key strategic errors the campaign made: most of them right from the start.
The first was to assume that something as technical as voting change could morph into a people’s campaign. Either the people are already in the driving seat, take the Gurkhas for example, or can be mobilised quickly because the issue is so emotive e.g. banning handguns after Dunblane. Neither was true of electoral reform.
Campaigners mistook the very real public distaste for politics following the expenses crisis as evidence that people would flock to a campaign calling for change. Sadly the change that the alternative vote promised was too small to be convincingly put forward as a response to our political malaise. Our campaign’s strapline ‘A small change that will make a big difference’ should have been ‘a small change that will make a small difference’. The public might have just about have bought that.
Having set the stage for a people versus the politicians fight, the media scuppered our ability to field anyone except for a politician. Apart from a few appearances, our able campaign Vice-Chair Jonathan Bartley was shunned by the broadcasters in favour of Liberal Democrat ministers nicely setting up a coalition split story that dominated the whole campaign.
We soldiered on trying to field more exciting and well known non-politicians: Martin Bell, the man who cleaned up politics all those years ago, Billy Bragg, who orchestrated vote swops across the country in 1997, Greg Dyke who made a stand on Iraq, but it didn’t help. The No campaign had Margaret Beckett and John Prescott and our spokespeople just didn’t fit the media crib.
The campaign failed to identify that the key voters in the referendum would be Labour. It was Labour voters who would be voting in the local elections across England, but particularly in the North to kick Nick Clegg. Given the timing of the referendum, the key test was whether we could persuade those voters who didn’t care either way about the referendum to use it to batter Cameron instead of Clegg. Since the national Yes campaign was non-party political, it was down to Labour Yes to make the running on this.
While the No campaign pumped out literature featuring Clegg across the North targeting Labour voters, Labour Yes had a small budget to print and hand deliver anti-Cameron leaflets in the areas where we had supportive MPs which were mainly in the South. The only Labour voter targeted literature also had to be delivered by volunteers, while the mailed literature went to swing voters likely to turn out. The need to target Labour voters was realised too late in the campaign when the dye had already set. Alan Johnson, Tessa Jowell, John Denham and other shadow cabinet ministers did a fine job of trying to make the Labour case, but should have been used as the key spokespeople for the campaign from the start. Instead, Liberal Democrat ministers dived into rows about AV as a proxy for other disagreements in the coalition. For the most part, it felt as if they were in denial about their sheer unpopularity.
And then came the megaphone broadcast. Supportive Labour MPs were already pretty peeved by the Yes campaign’s messaging that AV would make MPs work harder. In truth, the message should have been that AV would make MPs work harder for your vote, a subtle but important difference. When they were confronted by a caricature of themselves hiding from voters and gorging on posh lunches, it tipped a number into the No camp, and many into the ‘yes in principle, but I’m coming nowhere near your campaign’. Even Liberal Democrat MPs refused to deliver literature which said they were lazy. As the most ferocious street campaigners in politics, you can see why. We shot our messengers.
Cameron’s firm support for the No campaign and the Conservative Party’s commitment was the game changer. Up until the prime minister gave his speech on 18 February, the polls had been leaning towards yes, from that day forward they nose-dived. Meanwhile, Tory donors were lined up to channel cash into literature which bore the Labour Party’s logo and which was distributed in local council election areas where there would be a strong Labour vote. It is wonderfully ironic that Andrew Cook who donated to the Conservatives, and opposed the Sheffield Forgemaster loan, put his money into the No campaign which funded Labour branded literature which probably helped to rout the Lib Dems from office in Sheffield. The Tories’ steely determination to protect the status quo through whatever means possible has to be admired.
In the end, the Yes campaign’s army of young, passionate volunteers were let down by strategic failures of message and targeting. For me, their commitment made the Yes campaign an uplifting experience, a taste of how a more pluralist, hopeful politics could come to be. This year might have been about the gutter politics of babies in ventilators, but oddly it has strengthened the resolve of those who believe we’ll eventually find a better way.
Jessica Asato was the director of the Labour Yes campaign













Comments
scottspeig / May 12 2011 11:31am
2 reasons I'd give:
1 (a No voter) - You had perverse possibilities where getting extra 1st preferences harmed your campaign. (Nothing against the Yes campain itself)
2. (Yes voter) - The Yes campaign should have just stuck with the advantages of the system and ignored anything else. It got bogged down with politics (Labour for us, Tory against! When actually there was no political leeway)
mike / May 12 2011 11:51am
hmmm.
It seems that the split from top to bottom in the Labour party had more impact than the Lib Dem's who did campaign Yes.
And where I live, in a Labour target seat (which had a Labour MP from 1997 until 2010) that had borough elections, Labour election literature never mentioned 'yes to AV' at all.
You mention 'the most unpopular man in Britain to front it' (the Yes Campaign) - but aren't Milliband's poll ratings wrse than Clegg's?!
Andy Farrell / May 12 2011 12:10pm
The first mistake the Yes campaign made was believing that holding a referendum at a cost of £90m at of time of cuts was a good idea.
The hardest part for you was Clegg saying it was a miserable little compromise which simply showed that it was something that even your campaign didn't really want and attempting to dismiss him by simply stopping Ed from sharing a stage didn't work.
I am not sure about the Yes campaign being poorly funded, if it was, huge hill top banners and their cost was also a mistake.
Completely agree with the point on saying MP's were lazy, it was a huge misjudgement which branded even your own supporters but the accusation from the campaign that anyone against you was a Tory also had a big influence, as did the leaflet again branding even your own supporters as not caring about jobs.
The failure to clarify your arguments, for example it will help minority parties but by some miracle would defeat others, was also a huge error of judgement.
Silly things like the chocolate bar metaphor also didn't help and showed a naivety of the political elite which was frankly staggering.
When added all together your campaign rang to many alarms bells and thankfully the electorate made the right choice.
Tern / May 12 2011 12:41pm
Why would you think Cameron swung the polls in his favour, when his govt was unpopular?
How significant do you think was Yes not having a mailshot to every household? It should have been a precedent of campaign parity, from 1975, to have that. There should have been no cause to decide that printing aspect of it was an unaffordable cost.
It was at mailshot time that No got its sudden big lead. Their mailshot being all about £250 million and Clegg - and Clegg should end the coalition for it, his party have nothing to lose now. He just lets the Tories push him around.
I did 1000 Labour Yes in the old coalfield area of West Fife, and I did it for the sake of Yes, I'm a floating voter not a Labour loyalist personally. One place there was too uncomfortable to do more than a couple of streets of, the type of ghetto place where folks seem to live peering out of their windows all the time expecting trouble and one aggressive guy assuming the flyer was an advert and gesturing you away before you had got through his gate. A national mailshot through the postal service would have got through with less problems than voluntary flyering.
Bruce T Brown / May 12 2011 1:26pm
"... but oddly it has strengthened the resolve of those who believe we’ll eventually find a better way."
I am far from convinced that the resounding NO vote was a vote for NO CHANGE or a mandate for government not to reconsider change in the not to distant future. There was clear backing for YES in London boroughs generally and a handful in particular. It is possible that when the subject comes back the debate between FPTP and PR. Government may find it more difficult to defend FPTP in such a debate than had AV been introduced.
Some commentators have identified the need for the young to be more engaged with their politics than they are. Both UK youth and those polled in the infamous and oft quoted Australian poll favoured AV. If a more interactive voting system, which AV undoubtedly is, is required then AV may have been small change that has a potential to make meaningful change.
Time will tell.
Archie Manners / May 12 2011 4:29pm
An interesting article - but I fear it's somewhat confused. I have read many a post mortem from people involved with the YES campaign and they are all - in their own special ways - attempting to jump from a ship that has sunk.
http://www.peterbotting.co.uk/blog/blogging-botting/messaging-mistakes-by-yes/37
Is an interesting article by Peter Botting (who was involved in the NO campaign) and is worth reading. For what its worth, this is what I think:
It wasn't the lack of media. If the issue is clear enough, or portrayed well enough by organisers the media will latch on it anyway. It was nothing to do with a coalition split - that affected the Tory NO campagin in equal measure. Indeed it wasn't really down to the poorly judged television advertisements. The reasons are complex, but - to me at least - it boils down to three things:
1) AV was wrong - AV was NOT the right system, and trying to convince people otherwise was always going to be difficult. The initial poll lead was a fig leaf of excitement, and didn't reflect what people thought once they'd really considered the issue.
2) The Message was completely miscalculated: Despite AV being what it was, the YES campaign failed to focus on the positives of what it was. They exageratted. Arguably they fought the NO campaign on they're behalf by publicising they're statistics, and giving them further airtime. The Cost figure didn't matter where it came from. People don't remember who said it, or whether it was said to be true of false. They heard £250 million and shuddered at it, particularly at this time. YES slung mud, and devalued politicians further.
3) Convince natural supporters and GOTV: Worst of all they did not get the (Labour) vote out. They failed (completely) to secure Labour support at a time when Ed Miliband is ahead in the polls.
Rich Williams / May 12 2011 5:20pm
Where it went wrong for the Yes campaign was that they were unable to make an effective, logical argument for changing the voting system from FPTP to AV. Had the referendum question been one of "Should the voting system be changed?" then the Yes vote would have been considerably higher, but still would not have won.
The trouble with this referendum was that it was rushed to please both the Lib Dems and Labour - and I say that as a lifelong supporter and member of Labour!
What the Lib Dems should have negotiated, as part of their Coalition agreement was a full commission on electoral reform, which should have put forward several voting systems for final consideration in a referendum that should have been held in 2014.
The point is this: if we ARE agreed that the voting system needs to change, then giving the public the chance to keep the status quo was a bit of a mistake. If we want change, we need to force the issue.
Maybe Labour should commit to a referendum on AV vs PR when it regains power, and start offering this to the Lib Dems now?
matthew bond / May 12 2011 10:22pm
Ever thought it lost because it would have entrenched liberal veto, reduced political competition, helped reactionary liberal rump support Tories via 2nd preferences and taken power away from less politically knowledgeable? AV lost becase it was a reactionary reform.
matthew bond / May 13 2011 12:06am
Ever thought it lost because it would have entrenched liberal veto, reduced political competition, helped reactionary liberal rump support Tories via 2nd preferences and taken power away from less politically knowledgeable? AV lost becase it was a reactionary reform.
matthew bond / May 13 2011 4:53pm
Ever thought it lost because it would have entrenched liberal veto, reduced political competition, helped reactionary liberal rump support Tories via 2nd preferences and taken power away from less politically knowledgeable? AV lost becase it was a reactionary reform.
Ken Hall / May 14 2011 9:03pm
How can anyone write a post mortem on the yes campaign and completely fail to mention Miliband? Is it the same myopic denial of reality that plagued the yes campaign from the start? Or is it labour arrogance? Far too easy to say it was timing and Clegg.
The fact is the Yes Campaign was far ahead in the polls with a double-digit lead. Then Ed Miliband poisoned the campaign by making it a personality issue about Clegg..... THEN asked people to not use Clegg as a reason to vote No!?!?!?
Miliband then took the central role in the No campaign, centre stage with Cable and other various celebrities and refused to share a platform with Clegg (on a matter that they both agreed on) .
This was a massive strategic error. An error that the No campaign used to their advantage. When Cameron took to the stage with Dr Reid, the contrast between the two campaigns was acute and massive.
The Yes campaign dominated by a childish petulant Miliband behaving like a spoiled six year old, refusing to be seen dead with Clegg even on an issue that they both totally agreed on. It was petulant, childish and unprofessional.
The no campaign was a wide coalition of people who united and presented a mature, reasoned and professional image.
Now in the aftermath we are seeing Miliband and his supporters lie and lie and lie again. Writing Miliband out of a campaign he fronted, to blame Clegg, the man who Miliband shunted out of the campaign altogether.
Until labour recognise what a loser Miliband is, they will remain in opposition for a long time.
He lost this campaign. He only had this one issue to campaign on, and he lost most of his own party on it. He lost the labour leadership election. He lost the Council elections in the UK. He lost Scotland and he lost the Yes to AV campaign. Now the tories and labour are neck and neck in the latest polls.
Quite an achievement for Miliband at a time when the media and labour are scaremongering 24/7 about savage cuts...
We did not vote no because of Clegg. Many of us voted no because of Miliband!!!