How the system works in Blair's favour

Telegraph ^ | 5.5.05

[ambrose]

How the system works in Blair's favour

By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor

(Filed: 06/05/2005)

Tony Blair is set to be the first Prime Minister in 30 years to win an overall Commons majority with less than 40 per cent of the vote. In October 1974, Harold Wilson won with 39.3 per cent but had only a wafer-thin majority that soon evaporated.

The last time a government had a working majority with less than 40 per cent was in 1922, when the Tories led by Andrew Bonar Law had a majority of more than 200 with just 38.2 per cent against a divided opposition.

No party forming the government has gained more than 50 per cent of votes cast since 1935. But Labour has racked up huge majorities at the last two elections with smaller proportions of the vote than that achieved by Margaret Thatcher in 1979, when she had a majority of less than 50. In 2001, Labour was elected with a majority of 167 although it won 40.7 per cent of the UK vote.

With Mr Blair last night heading for what would by any measure still be a comfortable majority at Westminster - albeit significantly reduced from 1997 and 2001 - his opponents will say he cannot claim the mandate that such a lead would normally deliver.

The anti-Tory bias in the electoral system has been apparent for some time largely as a result of the exodus of voters from the towns and cities to the suburbs and the countryside. This should have been addressed by changing boundaries but the reforms have not taken place.

The size of electorates in Labour-held seats in big cities and the North has fallen while in Conservative-held suburban, rural and southern seats they have risen. One of the safest Labour seats, Easington, has an electorate of 62,000 while one of the Tories' safest seats, Surrey East, has more than 75,000.

Labour also benefits from the consistently smaller size of the electorates in Scotland and Wales. Despite the reduction in the number of Scottish seats from 72 to 59, the average number of voters in seats there and in Wales is typically in the order of 63,000. The average electorate in English constituencies approaches 70,000.

Another factor is differential turnout. Quite simply, fewer people, on average, turn out to vote in Labour-held seats than in Tory-held seats.

Blue-collar workers and the poor tend to turn out in smaller numbers than the better-off.

The unfairness in the system will prompt the Liberal Democrats to try to reopen the debate over proportional representation, though this is resisted by Labour and the Conservatives.

[1FASTGLOCK45]

We're always happy to share our system of government, they can copy it.

[goldstategop]

Independent boundary commissions redistricting House Of Commons ridings so gerrymandering's not a problem. A change of government in the U.K isn't hypothetical unlike in the States. The problem is that with the first the past post plurality electoral system, large parties benefit as opposed to small ones and they usually win consistent majorities. Minority led governments have been rare in the U.K. There are moves to introduce proportional representation but that would disadvantage Labour and the Conservatives since coalition governments would become the general rule. For that reason alone, I don't see the FPP system being changed any time soon.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Canard]

Proportional Representation would finish the Conservative Party in its present form. With the left-centre parties consistently polling 55-70% of the vote, it would just be non-stop leftie-coalition government.