|
Electoral 'travesty' favours Labour By Ben HallPublished May 6th 2005 in Financial TimesEven as the votes were being counted last night, questions were being asked about the legitimacy of the result.
The first-past-the-post system is so stacked in Labour's favour that it would be hard for Tony Blair to claim a popular mandate if, as the exit polls suggested, Labour had won only 37 per cent of the vote.
The last time a party took power with less than 40 per cent of the vote was October 1974, when Harold Wilson squeezed a majority of three out of Labour's 39 per cent share of the vote.
The last party to win a substantial Commons majority on a lower share of the vote was the Conservatives in 1922, when Andrew Bonar Law cruised to a 75-seat majority on 38 per cent of the vote, following the Liberal split.
Westminster's system has discriminated against the third-placed Liberal Democrats for decades. Their post-election demands for proportional representation will probably fall on deaf ears. But if, partly as a consequence of rising support for Charles Kennedy's party, Labour and the Conservatives come close in terms of share of the vote, the pressure for reform could become irresistible.
Labour could have conceivably won a parliamentary majority on a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.
"It would be a travesty of democracy," says Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer and chairman of Make Votes Count. "How do you claim a mandate in that situation?"
The first-past-the-post system has become progressively more favourable to Labour since 1992.
In 2001 the party took 64 per cent of all seats with 41 per cent of the votes, the biggest gap between the seat share and the vote share since the second world war.
Theoretically, if the Conservatives and Labour both won 36 per cent of the votes, Tony Blair would still have a majority of 50. It would require a four-point Conservative lead to draw level with Labour in seats and a lead of 9 to 10 points to scrape a majority over Labour.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, "this is probably the largest degree of bias the system has ever produced".
The system is stacked in Labour's favour for several reasons.
Support for the Conservatives is spread more evenly across the country, while the Labour vote is efficiently distributed, holding up where it matters most. For example, between 1992 and 2001 Labour's vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000, but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire, the Labour vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.
The 2005 Tory campaign has sought to correct this by ruthlessly targeting resources on swing voters in the most marginal seats.
Boundary changes have not kept up with shifts in population. The electorate in Labour's many urban seats is shrinking as more affluent (and supposedly Conservative) people move to the suburbs and semi-rural areas.
This bias has been partially corrected by boundary changes in Scotland, cutting 13 seats, 10 of them notionally Labour.
But in England and Wales, the rolling boundary review process is cumbersome. The 2005 constituencies were last adjusted in any significant way in 1994. The next boundary review will be completed in 2006, but is based on the 2001 census, which means that the next general election will be fought on 10-year-old population figures.
"It's like painting the Tyne Bridge," says Pippa Norris, a lecturer in politics at Harvard University.
Boundary reviews are subjected to long consultation and political negotiation. Expert assessment of the changes in the 1990s suggested they would increase the 1992 Tory majority by up to 27 seats. But Labour officials fought behind the scenes to protect their in-built advantages.
"The Tories were just dozy," Ms Norris says. "They did not understand the significance of the changes."
Finally, turnout in recent elections has plummeted in safe Labour seats while holding up quite well in marginal constituencies and safe Conservative territory. This makes it easier for Labour to win seats for a given share of the total national vote.
The problem of differential turnout is deep-seated, Lord Lipsey says, and "cannot be corrected without changing the voting system".
Electoral 'travesty' favours Labour By Ben HallPublished May 6th 2005 in Financial TimesEven as the votes were being counted last night, questions were being asked about the legitimacy of the result.
The first-past-the-post system is so stacked in Labour's favour that it would be hard for Tony Blair to claim a popular mandate if, as the exit polls suggested, Labour had won only 37 per cent of the vote.
The last time a party took power with less than 40 per cent of the vote was October 1974, when Harold Wilson squeezed a majority of three out of Labour's 39 per cent share of the vote.
The last party to win a substantial Commons majority on a lower share of the vote was the Conservatives in 1922, when Andrew Bonar Law cruised to a 75-seat majority on 38 per cent of the vote, following the Liberal split.
Westminster's system has discriminated against the third-placed Liberal Democrats for decades. Their post-election demands for proportional representation will probably fall on deaf ears. But if, partly as a consequence of rising support for Charles Kennedy's party, Labour and the Conservatives come close in terms of share of the vote, the pressure for reform could become irresistible.
Labour could have conceivably won a parliamentary majority on a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.
"It would be a travesty of democracy," says Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer and chairman of Make Votes Count. "How do you claim a mandate in that situation?"
The first-past-the-post system has become progressively more favourable to Labour since 1992.
In 2001 the party took 64 per cent of all seats with 41 per cent of the votes, the biggest gap between the seat share and the vote share since the second world war.
Theoretically, if the Conservatives and Labour both won 36 per cent of the votes, Tony Blair would still have a majority of 50. It would require a four-point Conservative lead to draw level with Labour in seats and a lead of 9 to 10 points to scrape a majority over Labour.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, "this is probably the largest degree of bias the system has ever produced".
The system is stacked in Labour's favour for several reasons.
Support for the Conservatives is spread more evenly across the country, while the Labour vote is efficiently distributed, holding up where it matters most. For example, between 1992 and 2001 Labour's vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000, but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire, the Labour vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.
The 2005 Tory campaign has sought to correct this by ruthlessly targeting resources on swing voters in the most marginal seats.
Boundary changes have not kept up with shifts in population. The electorate in Labour's many urban seats is shrinking as more affluent (and supposedly Conservative) people move to the suburbs and semi-rural areas.
This bias has been partially corrected by boundary changes in Scotland, cutting 13 seats, 10 of them notionally Labour.
But in England and Wales, the rolling boundary review process is cumbersome. The 2005 constituencies were last adjusted in any significant way in 1994. The next boundary review will be completed in 2006, but is based on the 2001 census, which means that the next general election will be fought on 10-year-old population figures.
"It's like painting the Tyne Bridge," says Pippa Norris, a lecturer in politics at Harvard University.
Boundary reviews are subjected to long consultation and political negotiation. Expert assessment of the changes in the 1990s suggested they would increase the 1992 Tory majority by up to 27 seats. But Labour officials fought behind the scenes to protect their in-built advantages.
"The Tories were just dozy," Ms Norris says. "They did not understand the significance of the changes."
Finally, turnout in recent elections has plummeted in safe Labour seats while holding up quite well in marginal constituencies and safe Conservative territory. This makes it easier for Labour to win seats for a given share of the total national vote.
The problem of differential turnout is deep-seated, Lord Lipsey says, and "cannot be corrected without changing the voting system".
Electoral 'travesty' favours Labour By Ben HallPublished May 6th 2005 in Financial TimesEven as the votes were being counted last night, questions were being asked about the legitimacy of the result.
The first-past-the-post system is so stacked in Labour's favour that it would be hard for Tony Blair to claim a popular mandate if, as the exit polls suggested, Labour had won only 37 per cent of the vote.
The last time a party took power with less than 40 per cent of the vote was October 1974, when Harold Wilson squeezed a majority of three out of Labour's 39 per cent share of the vote.
The last party to win a substantial Commons majority on a lower share of the vote was the Conservatives in 1922, when Andrew Bonar Law cruised to a 75-seat majority on 38 per cent of the vote, following the Liberal split.
Westminster's system has discriminated against the third-placed Liberal Democrats for decades. Their post-election demands for proportional representation will probably fall on deaf ears. But if, partly as a consequence of rising support for Charles Kennedy's party, Labour and the Conservatives come close in terms of share of the vote, the pressure for reform could become irresistible.
Labour could have conceivably won a parliamentary majority on a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.
"It would be a travesty of democracy," says Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer and chairman of Make Votes Count. "How do you claim a mandate in that situation?"
The first-past-the-post system has become progressively more favourable to Labour since 1992.
In 2001 the party took 64 per cent of all seats with 41 per cent of the votes, the biggest gap between the seat share and the vote share since the second world war.
Theoretically, if the Conservatives and Labour both won 36 per cent of the votes, Tony Blair would still have a majority of 50. It would require a four-point Conservative lead to draw level with Labour in seats and a lead of 9 to 10 points to scrape a majority over Labour.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, "this is probably the largest degree of bias the system has ever produced".
The system is stacked in Labour's favour for several reasons.
Support for the Conservatives is spread more evenly across the country, while the Labour vote is efficiently distributed, holding up where it matters most. For example, between 1992 and 2001 Labour's vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000, but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire, the Labour vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.
The 2005 Tory campaign has sought to correct this by ruthlessly targeting resources on swing voters in the most marginal seats.
Boundary changes have not kept up with shifts in population. The electorate in Labour's many urban seats is shrinking as more affluent (and supposedly Conservative) people move to the suburbs and semi-rural areas.
This bias has been partially corrected by boundary changes in Scotland, cutting 13 seats, 10 of them notionally Labour.
But in England and Wales, the rolling boundary review process is cumbersome. The 2005 constituencies were last adjusted in any significant way in 1994. The next boundary review will be completed in 2006, but is based on the 2001 census, which means that the next general election will be fought on 10-year-old population figures.
"It's like painting the Tyne Bridge," says Pippa Norris, a lecturer in politics at Harvard University.
Boundary reviews are subjected to long consultation and political negotiation. Expert assessment of the changes in the 1990s suggested they would increase the 1992 Tory majority by up to 27 seats. But Labour officials fought behind the scenes to protect their in-built advantages.
"The Tories were just dozy," Ms Norris says. "They did not understand the significance of the changes."
Finally, turnout in recent elections has plummeted in safe Labour seats while holding up quite well in marginal constituencies and safe Conservative territory. This makes it easier for Labour to win seats for a given share of the total national vote.
The problem of differential turnout is deep-seated, Lord Lipsey says, and "cannot be corrected without changing the voting system".
Electoral 'travesty' favours Labour By Ben HallPublished May 6th 2005 in Financial TimesEven as the votes were being counted last night, questions were being asked about the legitimacy of the result.
The first-past-the-post system is so stacked in Labour's favour that it would be hard for Tony Blair to claim a popular mandate if, as the exit polls suggested, Labour had won only 37 per cent of the vote.
The last time a party took power with less than 40 per cent of the vote was October 1974, when Harold Wilson squeezed a majority of three out of Labour's 39 per cent share of the vote.
The last party to win a substantial Commons majority on a lower share of the vote was the Conservatives in 1922, when Andrew Bonar Law cruised to a 75-seat majority on 38 per cent of the vote, following the Liberal split.
Westminster's system has discriminated against the third-placed Liberal Democrats for decades. Their post-election demands for proportional representation will probably fall on deaf ears. But if, partly as a consequence of rising support for Charles Kennedy's party, Labour and the Conservatives come close in terms of share of the vote, the pressure for reform could become irresistible.
Labour could have conceivably won a parliamentary majority on a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.
"It would be a travesty of democracy," says Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer and chairman of Make Votes Count. "How do you claim a mandate in that situation?"
The first-past-the-post system has become progressively more favourable to Labour since 1992.
In 2001 the party took 64 per cent of all seats with 41 per cent of the votes, the biggest gap between the seat share and the vote share since the second world war.
Theoretically, if the Conservatives and Labour both won 36 per cent of the votes, Tony Blair would still have a majority of 50. It would require a four-point Conservative lead to draw level with Labour in seats and a lead of 9 to 10 points to scrape a majority over Labour.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, "this is probably the largest degree of bias the system has ever produced".
The system is stacked in Labour's favour for several reasons.
Support for the Conservatives is spread more evenly across the country, while the Labour vote is efficiently distributed, holding up where it matters most. For example, between 1992 and 2001 Labour's vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000, but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire, the Labour vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.
The 2005 Tory campaign has sought to correct this by ruthlessly targeting resources on swing voters in the most marginal seats.
Boundary changes have not kept up with shifts in population. The electorate in Labour's many urban seats is shrinking as more affluent (and supposedly Conservative) people move to the suburbs and semi-rural areas.
This bias has been partially corrected by boundary changes in Scotland, cutting 13 seats, 10 of them notionally Labour.
But in England and Wales, the rolling boundary review process is cumbersome. The 2005 constituencies were last adjusted in any significant way in 1994. The next boundary review will be completed in 2006, but is based on the 2001 census, which means that the next general election will be fought on 10-year-old population figures.
"It's like painting the Tyne Bridge," says Pippa Norris, a lecturer in politics at Harvard University.
Boundary reviews are subjected to long consultation and political negotiation. Expert assessment of the changes in the 1990s suggested they would increase the 1992 Tory majority by up to 27 seats. But Labour officials fought behind the scenes to protect their in-built advantages.
"The Tories were just dozy," Ms Norris says. "They did not understand the significance of the changes."
Finally, turnout in recent elections has plummeted in safe Labour seats while holding up quite well in marginal constituencies and safe Conservative territory. This makes it easier for Labour to win seats for a given share of the total national vote.
The problem of differential turnout is deep-seated, Lord Lipsey says, and "cannot be corrected without changing the voting system".
Electoral 'travesty' favours Labour By Ben HallPublished May 6th 2005 in Financial TimesEven as the votes were being counted last night, questions were being asked about the legitimacy of the result.
The first-past-the-post system is so stacked in Labour's favour that it would be hard for Tony Blair to claim a popular mandate if, as the exit polls suggested, Labour had won only 37 per cent of the vote.
The last time a party took power with less than 40 per cent of the vote was October 1974, when Harold Wilson squeezed a majority of three out of Labour's 39 per cent share of the vote.
The last party to win a substantial Commons majority on a lower share of the vote was the Conservatives in 1922, when Andrew Bonar Law cruised to a 75-seat majority on 38 per cent of the vote, following the Liberal split.
Westminster's system has discriminated against the third-placed Liberal Democrats for decades. Their post-election demands for proportional representation will probably fall on deaf ears. But if, partly as a consequence of rising support for Charles Kennedy's party, Labour and the Conservatives come close in terms of share of the vote, the pressure for reform could become irresistible.
Labour could have conceivably won a parliamentary majority on a smaller share of the vote than the Conservatives.
"It would be a travesty of democracy," says Lord Lipsey, the Labour peer and chairman of Make Votes Count. "How do you claim a mandate in that situation?"
The first-past-the-post system has become progressively more favourable to Labour since 1992.
In 2001 the party took 64 per cent of all seats with 41 per cent of the votes, the biggest gap between the seat share and the vote share since the second world war.
Theoretically, if the Conservatives and Labour both won 36 per cent of the votes, Tony Blair would still have a majority of 50. It would require a four-point Conservative lead to draw level with Labour in seats and a lead of 9 to 10 points to scrape a majority over Labour.
According to the Electoral Reform Society, "this is probably the largest degree of bias the system has ever produced".
The system is stacked in Labour's favour for several reasons.
Support for the Conservatives is spread more evenly across the country, while the Labour vote is efficiently distributed, holding up where it matters most. For example, between 1992 and 2001 Labour's vote in Liverpool fell from 140,000 to 101,000, but it lost none of its five seats. In Northamptonshire, the Labour vote rose from 119,000 to 132,000 and it took five of the six Tory seats.
The 2005 Tory campaign has sought to correct this by ruthlessly targeting resources on swing voters in the most marginal seats.
Boundary changes have not kept up with shifts in population. The electorate in Labour's many urban seats is shrinking as more affluent (and supposedly Conservative) people move to the suburbs and semi-rural areas.
This bias has been partially corrected by boundary changes in Scotland, cutting 13 seats, 10 of them notionally Labour.
But in England and Wales, the rolling boundary review process is cumbersome. The 2005 constituencies were last adjusted in any significant way in 1994. The next boundary review will be completed in 2006, but is based on the 2001 census, which means that the next general election will be fought on 10-year-old population figures.
"It's like painting the Tyne Bridge," says Pippa Norris, a lecturer in politics at Harvard University.
Boundary reviews are subjected to long consultation and political negotiation. Expert assessment of the changes in the 1990s suggested they would increase the 1992 Tory majority by up to 27 seats. But Labour officials fought behind the scenes to protect their in-built advantages.
"The Tories were just dozy," Ms Norris says. "They did not understand the significance of the changes."
Finally, turnout in recent elections has plummeted in safe Labour seats while holding up quite well in marginal constituencies and safe Conservative territory. This makes it easier for Labour to win seats for a given share of the total national vote.
The problem of differential turnout is deep-seated, Lord Lipsey says, and "cannot be corrected without changing the voting system".
|
|