One of the arguments we hear from the Conservatives, and now their Liberal Democrat allies, is that UK parliamentary constituencies need to be equalised because they produce an unfair Labour advantage. The evidence does not support this assertion, and there is both a fallacy in the Conservative argument, and a glaring contradiction in their reasoning.
First let's dispel the myth that the Labour Party have some sort of unfair advantage in UK elections. To do this we must of course define what we mean by a fair result. By any objective measure, a fair result in one where a political party wins about the same proportion of seats in an election as the proportion of the vote it receives in that election. What usually happens in general elections is that the winning party usually wins far in excess of it's fair share of MPs, whether the winning party is Labour or Conservative. So in elections between 1997 and 2005 Labour won between 130 and 144 more MPs than was fair. On the other hand, in the 1983 and 1987 elections the Conservative Party won excesses of 121 and 102 MPs above the fair benchmark. I cannot help thinking that Cameron would not be so worried about fairness had he had the unfair advantage that Thatcher enjoyed. For Cameron, then, something is only unfair when it discriminates against him, when it discriminates in his party's favour, he would not be complaining.
Second, let's look at the complaint of unfairness against the Conservatives. It is true that in elections in 1997 and 2001 the Conservatives had a shortfall in fair representation of -37 and -43 MPs, in a fair result, they should have won more MPs. But then, in those same elections, the Liberal Democrats had shortfalls of -65 and -69 MPs, and in 1983 ans 1987 the Alliance had shortfalls of -142 and -125 MPs. I do not remember any Conservatives complaining about the unfairness of the system to the SDP-Liberal Alliance during those elections.
The fallacy in their argument is therefore exposed. This is not a bias in favour of Labour, this is an unpredictable bias in favour of wining parties, and a huge bias against third parties.
To emphasise the point, in every election since February 1974, the Liberal/Alliance/Liberal Democrats have always been massively under-represented, their best result during this time was a shortfall of 65 MPs below fairness.
If any party has a right to complain of unfairness, then it is the Liberal Democrats and their voters, who are routinely disenfranchised.
What, therefore is the contradiction in Conservative reasoning? It is that while Cameron has complained of the unfairness of the plurality voting system (FPTP), he has insisted that we must keep it. His argument seems to be that, when it doesn't suit his party, the system is unfair, but when it does suit his party, the system is fair.
No amount of constituency equalisation can correct the inherent instability of plurality elections. What causes the massive disproportionality that affects all three major parties, is the large vote share that goes to an electorally unsuccessful third party. During the 1950s and 1960s, when the third party's vote share was relatively low, disproportionality was much less of a problem, but with upwards of one in five voters voting for the Liberal Democrats, but with them never receiving as many as one in ten MPs, the winning party inevitably sucks up these seats that, by rights belong to the third party.
The real answer to this question is not to play around with how constituency boundaries are drawn, and it is certainly not to reduce the numbers of MPs (which will in fact exacerbate the situation). The real answer is to introduce a fairer, more proportional electoral system.
The question needs to be asked, therefore, why did the Liberal Democrats agree to a reduction in the number of MPs, when they knew it would lead to less fair elections? They have again and again claimed to be committed to making the electoral system fairer. And yet, when they enter government for the first time in nearly 70 years, they support measure after measure that will make the system less fair.
I am baffled by this self-harm by the party. The proposed changes will further disenfranchise an already massively under-represented Liberal Democrat electorate.
I get the feeling that the party doesn't even understand how much it is about to damage its own electoral chances.
