NEITHER:

Which party deserves to win? At the moment, it's a draw (Charles Moore, 19/03/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The British electoral system tends to exaggerate. In the last two general elections, Labour has won larger majorities (more than 160) than any other party since the war, but it has not won a larger percentage of the votes cast. The largest percentage of votes for one party was the 49.7 per cent cast for the Conservatives in 1955. Against that, Tony Blair has managed only 43.2 per cent in 1997 and 40.7 per cent in 2001 (and then less than 60 per cent of the electorate voted at all). Last time, a mere quarter of the total electorate gave him almost unbridled power. The "fairer" solution, in many people's minds, is some form of proportional representation.

But I have a theory that, despite the exaggerations, all modern British election results are deserved, in a way that a strictly proportional system can never be. Yes, most people vote the same way in every election.

Yes, many (increasing numbers) don't vote at all. Yes, the constituency boundaries tend to give over-representation to Labour and under-representation to Conservatives. Yes, the switched vote of relatively few determines the fate of all. And yet there is justice in the overall result.

To understand what I mean, you have to suspend your own personal political beliefs. It is not relevant, for example, that you may think that Attlee was wrong to try to nationalise heavy industry in 1945 or that Margaret Thatcher was wrong to try to tame the trade unions after 1979. The question to ask of any election is: which party manages best to address the hopes and fears of the nation, particularly the rising class in the nation?

At the moment it doesn't seem either party will get far enough Right to help the nation evade its existential crisis.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 19, 2005 4:46 PM