Do the math.

SU-16-murdoch2-gtI’ve been searching for an analogy to explain how infuriating it is that political commentators pay so little attention to the massive distorting effect of our outdated electoral system.

Imagine a number of sports reporters turning up to a football match and discovering that one of the two teams has been hit by a flu bug and is unable to field more than three players.  The game nonetheless goes ahead and unsurprisingly it finishes 45-0.

Such is the distorting effect of the imbalance between the two teams, you’d think the report would concentrate exclusively on the astonishing impact of the flu epidemic and that it would be utterly ridiculous to focus all the attention instead on the twenty-seven goals scored by the winning team’s star striker and the overall excellence of their attacking play.

But consider the nature of post-election analysis.  At the election in May, the Conservatives won 36.9% of the votes cast.  As the turnout was 66.1%, this represents 24.4% of the electorate… a paltry share of the vote which enabled the Tories to secure a majority in the House of Commons.

Now, if you follow politics closely then you probably know all that and you may even feel this distortion is acceptable because it delivers strong, decisive governments.  I disagree with you but I accept that it’s a valid point of view.

But – against this background – it is plainly bonkers to conclude that the majority of the British people support a particular Tory policy.

When – as acting leader of the Labour party – Harriet Harman decided to order her MPs to abstain on the Welfare Bill she said it was because the party “needed to wake up and understand the reasons for its defeat, including public rejection of the party’s stance on the economy and welfare”.

It was an extraordinary act of self-immolation.  It cannot even be said with confidence that all of the 23.9% of the electorate who voted Conservative hold that view so it was crazy and cowardly for Labour to wave the white flag on this issue.  And Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall’s decision to toe the party line shredded their credibility in the ongoing leadership campaign.

In reality, the margins between success and failure at the election this year were vanishingly small.

At the 2015 election, a party required 326 seats for an overall majority… and the Conservatives won 330.  That actually means – believe it or not – they would have failed to secure a majority if just 429 Conservative voters in five marginal constituencies had opted to put a cross against the name of the Tories’ main rival instead.

So next time you hear someone drawing confident conclusions about the political appetite of the British people on the back of the 2015 result, keep in mind that the whole outcome of the election could have been changed by considerably fewer people than attended the Vauxhall Conference clash between Bromley and Macclesfield last Saturday… where there were eleven men on each team and no one scored twenty-seven goals.

(This article was corrected after Twitter user @draggingmeunder pointed out that fewer seats needed to change hands than I originally thought.)


About MrJasonStone

Co-owner and editor of David Reviews; occasional contributor to The Drum; and author of the weekly Ad Break column at The Guardian.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Do the math.

  1. Pingback: Jeremy Corbyn: (mostly) the right message, but the worst possible messenger | shaunjlawson

  2. Ian Davies says:

    What is the calculation to reach the figure of 429 voters? I’m not doubting, on the contrary, but I like to be able to point to the sources of such statements when sharing them with people. TIA.

    • MrJasonStone says:

      Although the Tories have a majority of twelve, they would have failed to cross the line required for an overall majority if they’d won fiver fewer seats. If you look at the Tories’ five narrowest wins and add up the majorities it comes to 858. So if half those voters had switched allegiance to the second-placed candidates, that would have been enough to make the critical difference. Hence 429. I accept it’s out-of-the-ballpark hypothetical but it’s mathematically accurate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s