YouGov published a new poll yesterday through the relatively new online space that is called The New World.
Peter Kellner wrote in a free email that I was sent by that publication, to which I have not as yet been persuaded to subscribe, that any polling data in the UK has now to be based upon carefully worded questioning of people as to their voting intentions, precisely because asking simply who they support as their first preference in any election does not provide an indication of the likely outcome of the election in question under the current Westminster parliamentary first-past-the-post electoral system.
There is a simple explanation. People in this country have, it would appear, got used to voting tactically and, as a consequence, many people no longer necessarily vote for who they want to represent them in Parliament. Instead, they vote to prevent someone from representing them in Parliament. In that case, where there appears to be a two-party race in their constituency, and they have little enthusiasm for either party, they will choose their least-worst option, even though they may have little enthusiasm for the person elected as a result.
Refreshingly, evidence suggests that this approach to voting has emerged as a consequence of the rise of the far right in UK politics. When Reform seems likely to be one of the two parties most likely to be elected in a constituency, many who might, by inclination, never willingly vote for the other available option may then do so. Those inclined to the left might vote Tory in that case. The same is also seen when Tories realise the choice in their constituency might be between Reform and Labour, and they, and perhaps supporters of other parties, might then switch their vote to Labour as a result.
This trend is reflected in the two charts noted here.
The first shows the number of seats that might be won by parties in the Westminster Parliament if votes were cast in the way that voters' first preference might suggest. The second takes account of tactical voting and the changes in behaviour that I have noted above.
Unsurprisingly, these forecasts are very different, but only when it comes to the previously dominant first-past-the-post parties. For the SNP, the Liberal Democrats (almost) and other smaller parties, it is likely that the outcomes will be little changed by this tendency amongst voters to vote against the return of a Reform MP for their constituency. However, so strong is that tendency that the number of MPs who might be returned for Reform under the first-past-the-post system collapses from 123 seats to no more than 11, with consequent increases in the number of seats that might be held by both Labour and the Tories.
This does, of course, matter. It matters because it makes clear that people do not want neo-fascists in our Parliament, and recognise that the risk exists, and that they will make electoral sacrifices to prevent it happening. That is incredibly heartening.
This poll also says something that I think is profoundly significant, which is that there remains a decent majority in this country who hate the racism and abuse that Reform and other far-right parties promote, and that they will take active steps to prevent them securing power.
The poll result also implies that my concerns about first past the post, expressed in another post on this blog this morning, may be misplaced. That, however, is something with which I would not agree. That is because, as a democrat, I believe that people should be represented by those whose views they want to hear. In other words, whilst I would undoubtedly vote to prevent Reform from securing a seat in Parliament, I would much rather be able to vote for the person I wish to support, indicating an order of preference when doing so. If, as a consequence, more neo-fascist candidates were returned, I would accept that risk.
If we are to beat fascism, it has to be through argument, confrontation and exposure of the fantasy of their claims rather than by electoral suppression. I am sure that we can beat them, but I want that to be done fairly for the sake of creating Parliament. The alternative might be social tension that might be too great for our society to bear.
Fascism must be beaten, but it must be beaten fairly, which is precisely why we need electoral reform now, and not later as Labour is promising. Justice deliberately deferred is not justice at all.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I think I’ve said this before, but a Dutch voter once pointed out to me that under PR, you would be tolerating fascist politics but at least they would have to work with others to survive in such a system. And if the fascists did not like that, they would simply give up and go away. PR is the best way to keep them where we can see them and let them be heard. And, also be creative at accommodating their claims.
I do wonder what would happen to fascist leaders in such a system. The only thing that would keep them going is the huge donations made by dodgy billionaires. And that can be dealt with too.
Fully agree. Voting for a second or even a third preference is what I call negative voting. It has its uses but the danger is it results in luke warm support for democracy. Our commitment to real democracy is being challenged as it hasn’t been since the 1930s.
Single transferable voting gives us the most choice.
And, unfortunately, voters who think they’re gaming the system are thus gamed under FPTP. The plutocrats and Single Transferable Party don’t have to offer anything better, just better than the bogeyman.
As someone who has only ever lived in FPTP constituencies where my vote is pointless and never counted, the tactical vote was all I had. I haven’t always voted as the seat was often “safe”, usually a Tory. I didn’t see any point voting just to make up the numbers. Of course, I would vote to keep Reform out, but where I live that means either Tory or Labour, and I could never vote Tory. As Labour became more “blue” I didn’t like them either.
It isn’t democracy if all you can vote for is the lesser of two or three evils.
Agreed
The Humpback in everybody’s swimming pool is the lack of alternative candidates. You can only vote for the people who are willing and, above all, able to get their names on the ballot paper. I’d vote for Richard for PM, Colonel Smithers for Chancellor, Mike Parr for Energy, PSR for Housing and myself to put the chairs away after cabinet meetings (if I could cope with the English traffic after all these years away) but none of us actually want to stand and would have great difficulty getting the support needed to actually get on the ballot paper if we did.
There is strong evidence that this has already happened. Tactical voting took place at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for the Scottish parliament, and also at the Caerphilly by-election for the Senedd in 2025. Again tactical voting was at play at the Gorton and Denton and Makerfield by-elections earlier this year. Voters are coalescing around candidates best placed to defeat Reform UK.
Interesting graphs. Fully agree – delaying changes to a flawed system only prolongs the error.
However, is it true that Fascism must be beaten fairly – or is it just important that fascism is beaten?
It seems that it was kicking the NF off the streets in the late 70’s that got rid of them. Of course, rhetoric and strength of argument is important – but the physical confrontation seems important too. I thought it was someone famous (perhaps Trotsky) that said “the only way to negotiate with fascists is with your boot on their throat” – but apparently that is a common misconception.
It has to be beaten fairly to contain anger.
The sad part about being left with only a tactical vote is that neoliberalism will nearly always remain in corridors of power. If the only way to keep the likes of Reform or Restore out is to vote for another neoliberal then I don’t see that as serving democracy, rather it just serves wealth.
Personally, I try to vote for anyone who is not – as far as I’m able to tell – an advocate of neoliberal ideology. I guess that runs the risk of fascism sneaking in. It also means my vote usually ends up going to someone who stands little chance of winning (as it’s often the smallest parties standing that aren’t neoliberal – doesn’t necessarily mean those candidates understand that the household analogy is false, though, sadly).
I’m a dual national. Australians never have to suffer this totally non democratic first past the post system! Preferential voting solves this, of course we have compulsory voting also. See the Australian Guardian explainer video Preferential Voting 101. In democracies the public make the laws, get up!
And we simply must raise democracy to legislate mandatory sortition and citizen assemblies and citizen juries and mini public consultations. I know that Richard you are not a fan of these protections of deliberative democracy. If it was built into our society that a genuine cross section of the public helped create policy ( sortition is lottery as 6th century Athenians protected democracy from oligarch wealth and power) rather than revolving door City or Monarchy corporate lobbyists and career politicians, it is evidence based research that these citizens make good public decisions that raise all.