A Proportional Response
Monday, May 09, 2005

I'll leave the detailed psephology to bigger brains than mine (I did after all, predict a New Labour majority of between 85 and 95 seats and doom and gloom in general) but there are a few wider points worth making, I think.

* The turnout at the election was 61.3%, up just 2% from 2001.

* New Labour polled 35.2% of the vote. The Tories took 32.3%, the Lib Dems 22% and other parties 10.5% meaning 64.8% of the votes cast were not for New Labour. More people (38.7% of the electorate) did not vote at all than voted for New Labour.

* New Labour polled just 0.8% more of the vote than Neil Kinnock did in 1992 when the Tories beat his Labour party with a 21 seat majority.

* When you look at the electorate as whole, the picture is even worse. Only one in five voted New Labour, two in five voted for the oppostion parties and two in five voted not at all. Four out of five of the electorate - 80% - did not vote for New Labour.

And another thing, if we allocated the seats according to votes cast - that is, each vote has equal weighting - this is how things pan out:

Lab: 227 (actually got 356)
Con: 209 (actually got 197)
LDs: 142 (actually got 62)
Oth: 68 (actually got 30)

Which would, clearly, leave New Labour with no overall majority.

On top of that, a story in the Daily Mail on Saturday said the the Tories polled 60,00O more votes than New Labour in England (8,086,306 vs 8,028,242) - the Tories won the popular vote. Now, I'll wait until I see that in black and white in the research paper I hope the House of Commons will produce in time (as they did in 2001), but if it is true, we're in serious Bush vs Gore 2000 territory.

Even Blair admitted, in his febrile courting of the marginals, that some votes are more important then others. So, let's have no more talk of a mandate, shall we?

(In my own constituency, New Labour candidate Celia Barlow squeaked home with a majority of 420 votes. There was a swing of 8.4% away from her. The Lib Dems increased their vote by 8.8%.

Compared to the national picture, Celia polled better. She was voted for by one in four of the electorate - 37.5% of the vote on an 64.1% turnout. It still means that 75% - three in four - of the Hove electorate did not vote New Labour.

I'll be watching Celia with interest and hope she makes a better parliamentarian than she did parliamentary candidate. Being - let's be generous - fuzzy with the facts with a lowly voters is one thing but up in the big house it's called misleading Parliament and carries stiffer penalties.)

The fight for Proportional Representation begins again in earnest. Anybody who argues against it is no longer a democrat as far as I'm concerned. See some of the myths slained here. If you want to see a change you could begin by signing Nosemonkey's petition. Polly Toynbee in the run up to the election, exhorted disillusioned Labour voters to vote Labour and then join the fight for PR. Let's hope she's putting her money where her nosepeg is and joining the Electoral Reform Society or Make My Vote Count (they have a petition as well). It'll be interesting to see how voceriferously she campaigns for it in her Guardian column (Google News Alert duely deployed).

To help with the case, I think Proportional Representation needs a long overdue rebranding. Why not rename it "Equitable Representation" or something similar? Imagine Jon Snow interviewing Tony Blair: "Prime Minister, why are you against Equitable Representation? Do you think some people's votes are worth more than others?"

That has much more resonance and has a more does-what-it-says-on-the-tin vibe about it as well to entice those who turn the page when they see the words "electoral reform". How can you argue against something that is equitable? (What am I saying? This is New Labour we're talking about, they're fully equipped to defend the indenfsible.) But all the same, "Proportional Representation" is a phrase that's hard to get worked up about. Like "flexible working conditions". If only someone would ask Digby Jones, Director General of the Confederation of British Industry and leading advocate of "flexible working conditions", why he's a proponent of low pay. Let's have something everybody can feel passionate about.

The Equal Vote?

So all PR needs is a rebranding - it's worked for unpopular causes before, just ask the Labour movement (or maybe don't) - and some solid support from the likes of Toynbee. (I jest of course, after her shameful performance in the last few weeks, I doubt many would follow her if she was campaigning for free jetpacks for everyone.)

In this age of reality television, isn't the Mother of all Parliaments due a makeover?

EDIT: The Tories outpolled New Labour in England.

UPDATE: The Independent on Electoral Reform - Why it's time for change, System failure: all voters are equal, but some are more equal than others, While Britain lectures the world on democracy, others put it into practice.


8 Comments:

On May 09, 2005 7:08 PM, Blogger Unity said...

Justin:

The figures quoted by the Daily Mail for the 'popular vote' are for England only.  


On May 09, 2005 7:21 PM, Anonymous Katie said...

Equitable Representation has too many syllables to be properly catchy.

What about "Fair Share" voting? It rhymes. You can see it in 48 pt under a red masthead already.

Of course, it sounds like something Randian heroes would coruscatingly lambast, and therefore you would lose the Notting Hill set. Who needs them though? Bunch of gin monkeys.  


On May 09, 2005 7:28 PM, Blogger Eddie said...

I am very concerned that these demands are going to come true by the end of this Parliament, but not in the way everyone wants.

Remember Labour has the AV+ vote system sitting deep in a Whitehall safe, raring to go?

If Labour looks like it's going to lose the next election it's going to dig it out and implement it, for the prime reason that the constituency candidates will be rankable as well as giving an extra vote for a "top up" list.

The top up may make it slightly more proportional (don't expect much more of a "top up" as is provided in Scotland under AMS), but Labour like the sound of AV+ because Labour voters are going to vote 1-Lab, 2-LD... and LD voters are going to do the reverse. This will make the Tories lose very large numbers of constituencies, thus killing them off and allowing Labour to carry on.

Beware AV+. Roy Jenkins knew exactly what he was doing.  


On May 09, 2005 8:43 PM, Blogger Murky said...

If Lab voters go 1 Lab, 2 LD and vice versa, (something I disagree with, I would not vote for NuLab), why is this a problem?

If a system allows a voter to say 'I prefer this guy, I don't mind that guy, but I don't want him' Why shouldn't the first two get the lion's share?

You're also forgetting that when preferences can be expressed people can vote for, as an example, green, without letting in THOSE people.

Personally, I'd rather go with Condorcet or STV than AV+, but AV+ is better than FPTP and FPTP is SO bad....  


On May 09, 2005 8:47 PM, Blogger Justin said...

Unity: thanks for that - should have read the article more than once.

Eddie: Funnily enough, I saw Peter Hain interviewed the other day (just where escapes me) and when he was pulled up on electoral reform he expressed his fondness for the Alternative Vote. So he's given it an early airing.  


On May 09, 2005 9:18 PM, Blogger Phil said...


New Labour polled 35.2% of the vote. The Tories took 32.3%, the Lib Dems 22% and other parties 10.5% meaning 64.8% of the votes cast were not for New Labour. More people (38.7% of the electorate) did not vote at all than voted for New Labour.

I think you mean "non-voters were a larger proportion of the total electorate than the proportion of those who did vote who voted Labour". What you've actually written was true last time and, I think, even in 1997.

As for Peter Hain, he's been an advocate of AV for a long time. He wrote a book on PR in 1986; it was called Proportional Misrepresentation, which might be a clue to his position! He came down in favour of AV, despite the fact that it's not actually proportional.  


On May 10, 2005 12:17 AM, Blogger Nick said...

Why not just 'Fair Votes'? Simple, to the point, and constantly asking politicians 'why are you against fair votes' means that eventually one will answer 'But it's not fair!' which would be fun.

And I personally favour STV, one good reason because it's the system that politicians fear most because they have to work to get votes for themselves, not just their party.  


On May 10, 2005 10:17 AM, Blogger Eddie said...

The chance of this country getting STV are precisely zero. We need to be realistic - AV+ is the only measure on the table that is likely to bring the government together. AV+ still leaves a chance of a government forming without coalitions, and let's face it, no government is ever going to bring in a system that will force coalitions all the time.

I saw the same interview, Justin. As Phil says, AV is not a proportional system, so there is no chance that people will accept AV as a replacement to FPTP. But Hain could look like he is prepared to compromise by agreeing with AV+.

Much as I hate the Tories, I can't help but feel that deliberately trying to destroy them by changing the electoral system would be ridiculously underhand.  


Post a Comment




Links to this post:

Create a Link


Home