That politics is about power is about as simple and axiomatic a statement as you'll ever come across. It is, however, a little too simple. Power, you see, is no good on its own; in the dirty world of politics it either comes at the expense of somebody else or it's nothing. It's the same, largely pointless, keeping-up-with-the-Joneses nonsense based on people's daft pre-occupation with what strangers think of them used to cripple human progress and sell Volvos. Anyone who says otherwise is either a child or a fool and should be ignored or slapped until they see sense or the inside of a padded cell.

Similarly, anyone who can justify the following stat in the name of anything resembling common sense or common decency should be awarded the Nobel Price for Rhetoric.

In 1992 the Conservatives under John Major outpolled Labour by 7.6 percentage points but got an overall majority of only 21. [In 2001], by contrast, although Tony Blair did only a little better than John Major, leading the Conservatives by 9.3 points, he won a majority of 167. —The Economist, April 8th 2005

This also means that it takes about twice as many votes to elect a Conservative MP as it does to elect a Labour MP. If I was a Tory voter, I think I'd be mildly aggrieved that I was deemed only half as worthy of my place in the democratic system as a random Labour counterpart.

Yet despite this, the Conservatives, for reasons born out of either blind optimism or wilful ignorance refuse to even think about what could be done to even things up. Were it simply a refusal to change anything, one could perhaps understand it, but failure to even consider possible solutions smacks of stubborn stupidity.

Under such circumstances, one is usually best advised to let the ignorant rot, "never smarten up a chump", as W.C. Fields would say. But that seems a little too cruel, and I never take advice from men named after a toilet. And besides, we've seen the trouble a majority government without effective opposition can wreak in too many foul and inhumane ways recently to sit by and do nothing.

So here we go… This isn't intended to be a typical 'FPTP is rubbish, STV would be much better' exposition—we have plenty of them already, and the Tories have ignored every single one. The purpose of this piece is to awaken the Conservatives to issues they've up until now simply pretended didn't exist, but which they would be well-advised to engage with. And if at the end they still choose to champion FPTP, that's okay, but at least they'd be doing it from an informed, rather than a party-political, basis.

The ERS report is split into five main sections: the 2005 election, the boundary review, how boundaries can bias the system against the Conservatives (but how they really aren't that important), the real reasons for bias, and what can be done about it. For ease of reference, I'll follow pretty much the same course here.

The 2005 Election

Overall bias

A common argument used to defend FPTP from a Conservative point of view is that it may be biased in favour of Labour now, but one day the pendulum will swing and it will be the Tories that are able to repress free speech and execute Brazilians or whatever else they feel like doing in the name of justice, combating terrorism or placating Rupert Murdoch.

This misapprehends the history of electoral bias and vastly underestimates the current state of play.

The principal means of measuring electoral bias is to consider how the two main parties would fare against each other if there were a uniform swing from the party that won the popular vote to the runner-up, such that they drew level on votes. To see how electoral bias has operated since the end of Second World War, see this chart. (*=estimate of result using new boundaries that came into force in 1974, 1983 and 1997 respectively)

The system hasn't worked in the Tories' favour since the 50s. Throughout the 60s and 70s, Labour experienced a small bias, a lead of about 20 seats on level votes, but nothing particularly impressive. However, since 1992, things have gone a bit crazy. In 1992, the bias was 38 seats in Labour's favour. In 1997 this had increased to 79. By 2001, following a 1.8% swing to the Conservatives that saw almost no seats change hands, the level votes scenario had Labour ahead by 140 seats. This monstrous figure was tamed slightly in 2005, to 116 seats, still wildly out of line with historical figures. Tony Blair may have been the fertiliser that caused the bias to grow so fast so quickly, but that is no reason to think he'll take it with him when he leaves. It is more likely, given the Prime Minister's declining popularity, that his departure could increase the bias further.

Bias in England

Surprisingly little was made of the fact that the Conservatives polled 65,704 more votes than Labour in England, yet ended up with 92 fewer seats. Whether this was because they realised bemoaning this statistic would mean people like us would badger them some more about electoral reform, or whether it was because they lacked the balls to campaign wholeheartedly for an English parliament is hard to say. Either way, it's an important issue.

The reason for the Tories getting battered seat-wise in England, despite having more votes than Labour lies in the metropolitan areas. Outside of London, the Conservatives won just five out of 124 urban seats. That's five MPs for 1.1 million votes, votes that under a more proportional system would have returned 30 MPs. This is a larger problem than just fewer metropolitan members in the Commons. As the report states: "FPTP has not only weakened the voice of the Conservatives in the big cities, it has also weakened the voice of the big cities within the Conservative party… the perception that a minority party does not matter in the area is self-reinforcing." Talented Tories, if they wish to rise up the ranks, are forced to abandon their local area in order to have their say, thus further lessening the chances of the Tories winning seats in the cities.

But enough of England; things only start to get really amusing across the borders.

Bias in Scotland and Wales

There were 59 seats up for grabs in Scotland in the 2005 general election. Labour got 40 of them (67.8%) on just under 39% of the vote, at a cost of 22,681 votes per MP. The Conservatives only managed to elect one MP, at a slighter grander cost of 369,388 votes.

In 1997 and 2001, the quarter of a million Conservatives in Wales failed to elect a single MP. 2005 was therefore, a time for much celebration, as they scooped three seats (albeit two by wafer-thin majorities of 133 and 607) at just under 100,000 votes per seat. Labour polled almost exactly twice as many votes as the Conservatives in Wales, and were rewarded with almost ten times as many seats (29) at just 20,511 votes each.

It's not all bad news, however. When Scotland and Wales were devolved, and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly were created, it was thought that allocating seats in such a ridiculous manner would be a bit stupid and would not lead to either public support or effective governance. With this in mind, they opted to hold the devolved elections under fairer systems, thus saving the Conservative Party from Celtic oblivion.

The boundary question, or why Oliver Heald is a bit of an idiot

Would the Hon. Gentleman accept that the bias in the system at present is mostly accounted for by variations in size between constituencies throughout the United Kingdom? If we had an equal electoral quota that was properly implemented throughout the country so that constituencies were the same size we would have a much more proportional system and one that did not have the bias within it? —Oliver Heald, speaking in the Commons, June 22 2005

Talking about the 'unfair' state of constituency boundaries is the Conservative Party's way of dealing with the electoral bias in Britain. In Conservative World, it is easy to see that the average Conservative seat contains more electors than the average Labour seat, and thus easy to see where the problem lies. Take Heald's quote above, Boris on Question Time, or Peter Oborne in the Spectator. They should, I suppose, all be commended on spotting that something is wrong, but their pronouncements as to why things are wrong are equally erroneous.

The net effect of the new boundary changes, (based on data from February 2000 and not likely to be used for Westminster elections until at least 2009) if used in 2005 would have been to increase the number of Conservative MPs by around seven, reduce Labour MPs by six and increase Lib Dem MPs by three, thus reducing Labour's majority from 66 to 50. Nothing special, in other words, and nowhere near explaining the bias highlighted earlier. The only thing it will do is make it harder for Labour to have a majority despite a Conservative lead in votes; it will make little difference to Conservative chances of establishing a majority of their own.

There is a more subtle, and arguably more important, aspect to the redrawing of boundaries than the mere creation and elimination of certain seats. For example, making certain Labour-held marginals more or less difficult for the Conservatives to gain on a given national swing. Due to knock-on effects and the fact that some people's voting behaviour will change when they are put in a new constituency, the more subtle outcomes of boundary changes are generally very hard to account for, however clever a party's lawyers may be.

Take Northamptonshire as an example. Northamptonshire is due another seat, an increase from six to seven, due to population growth in the mainly Conservative areas in the south west of the county. The Conservatives thus now have an extra safe seat (South Northamptonshire). However, South Northamptonshire robs surrounding marginals of key Conservative voters, enough to wipe out their thin majorities in Northampton South and Kettering and almost in Wellingborough too, meaning a net loss of one seat for the Tories.

Overall, therefore, fiddling with the boundaries is all a lot of posturing with very little purpose. To make this abundantly clear, one needs only look at how the difference in constituency size has changed, or rather not changed, over the years. As this chart (*='notional' figure if the boundaries introduced in 1997 had been used in 1992) shows better than any amount of words and numbers could, size really doesn't matter; anyone who spots a correlation between this chart and the earlier one showing overall bias might want to book an appointment with their local optician. Perhaps Mr Heald would like to print them out and stick them on his wall.

For a full explanation of how the boundary commission works, including the specific changes to constituency boundaries, see the full report.

The real reasons for bias

Bias summarised

With boundaries being consistently tilted in Labour's favour since the advent of rock and roll, and overall bias only really taking off along with grunge in the early nineties, there must be some other, significantly more important, factors to explain why the system hates the Tories. And there are, namely, differential turnout and inefficient vote distribution, including political and electoral strategy and tactical voting.

Differential turnout

Turnout in 2001 fainted like that time Margaret Thatcher fell face first from the podium during a conference speech. And like the Iron Lady, it hasn't recovered.

The unprecedented fall in votes was concentrated in the most working-class safe labour constituencies. In 2001, turnout in Labour seats was only 58.0%, as opposed to 65.3% in Conservative seats. Combined with a 9.1% difference in electorate size, the actual gap in terms of voters was 22.9%—47,618 people voted in the average Conservative seat and only 38,739 in the average Labour seat—a gap ten times larger than the equivalent figure in 1959.

Blame Blair, or blame the general shift in British political attitudes, but don't blame the boundaries.

There's not a lot that can be done about this; compulsory voting would eliminate the difference, but it's very unlikely to help the Conservatives—Labour would gain in the vote, but seats would probably remain unchanged.

For a more detailed explanation, involving a lovely little example, check the full report.

Inefficient vote distribution

One of the more successful items of nineties ephemera were 'No Fear' branded T-shirts. They're still going, but you don't see nearly as many of them these days. They became popular through whacking competitive and rebellious slogans on cheap pieces of material, such that the wearer might be deemed a cross between James Bond and Evel Knievel. One such slogan was 'second place is the first loser.' It was (not) known in the trade as the 'First-Past-the-Post' slogan.

Coming second under FPTP is pointless, vote for a second place candidate and you might as well have voted for the Monster Raving Loony. No one cares about you. This is why a move that would encourage a few hundred extra people to vote Labour in a tight marginal, but alienate a few thousand up in Liverpool is worth doing, politically speaking.

This is how FPTP distorts the political process—it encourages negative campaigning, as there is no need to be any good if you can make your opponent appear worse; it alienates millions of people as their votes don't make a bit of difference to how the country is run, all because of where they live and it reduces policy-making to short-termist tat specifically engineered to bribe the special voters into placing their cross in the correct box. Defenders of FPTP defend this as the best means of running an effective, democratic country.

There is no way to fix inefficient vote distribution through redrawing boundaries. As the full report states:

While there are substantial numbers of Conservative supporters in South Yorkshire, for instance, there is simply no way of corralling enough of them into a single-member constituency to give them a chance of winning a seat, however much one bends the boundaries. The Labour vote being 'lumpier' (more efficiently distributed), it does tend to be able to achieve representation where it is locally in a minority, although there are cases such as Surrey where it is too thinly and evenly spread.

It continues:

Avon provides an insight into how the system can work against a party with evenly spread support. In 2005 the Conservatives were very narrowly the most popular party in the county, with 31.9% support to 31.8% for Labour and 30.9% for the Lib Dems. Yet they won only 2 seats, compared to 3 for the Lib Dems and 5 for Labour.

It should also be noted that in Avon the average Conservative seat is slightly smaller than the average Labour and Lib Dem seats.

Part of the reason for the Conservatives' relatively inefficient vote distribution is tactical voting, which has become increasingly clever since 1992, with voters in 2005 able to consult a number of websites to find out how best to vote against the Tories, including 'swapping' their vote with someone in another constituency.

Post-1992 bias summarised

The change in the vote share of the three main parties since 1992 is as follows:

Conservatives - 9.8%
Labour + 1.5%
Lib Dem + 3.7%

Allowing for boundary changes, and assuming these changes took place uniformly, the outcome of the 2005 election would have been very different. In short, the Conservatives would have been 48 seats better off, taking 30 from Labour, 16 from the Lib Dems and two from the others.

Labour's success in manipulating the voting system is "the stuff of politics rather than boundary distribution or electoral mechanics". FPTP puts such a premium on swing voters in marginal seats that whoever works them the most effectively runs off with all the prizes. The Conservatives might think, therefore, that all they need to do is ape Blair, and win these voters back. They might want to think again.

"There is no reason not to expect a substantial pro-Labour bias in terms of translating national share of the vote into seats."

Despite 'tactical unwind', and the culling of some superfluous Scottish seats, the bias in 2005 was still monumental. The problems of differential turnout and inefficient vote distribution are not going anywhere fast, and whoever emerges from the current interminable leadership contest is going to have to either work with them or realise that to eliminate them he must eliminate FPTP.

The Conservatives and electoral reform

FPTP is an obstacle to the Conservatives in the essential business of politics, namely regaining power. If the Conservatives are happy existing with a bit under a third of the vote, a comfortable lock on representing some of the more attractive places in England, and very little chance of power, they should stick with FPTP. If the Conservatives have more ambitious aims, they need to look further.

Over the last thirteen years, the power of the Conservative party in relation to Labour has atrophied to a startling degree. They spectacularly failed to respond to the shifting structure of British party politics and the desires of the nation as a whole. A series of nondescript leaders have been as useless at combating Tony Blair as they have been at combating their own alopecia. There is no reason to suggest this malaise is about to disappear.

Complaining about the boundaries is a pointless distraction from the real problems. Playing with boundaries will not, indeed cannot, solve the Conservatives' problems.

The electoral system bias means the Conservatives can't 'do a Labour' and win back power on 35% of the vote. Outside of some form of deluded dreamland, there is no way to reverse this situation; these problems are very real and will continue to plague the Tories for the foreseeable future.

There is, however, a way to even it up. Under any voting system, the Conservatives need to propel themselves into the 40% level of support to gain back governmental power. Under a reformed system, unlike under FPTP, Labour would need to do this too.

Winning back enough voters to push support over the 40% mark has proved to be very difficult for the Tories, largely because New Labour have commandeered so much of their traditional ground. Simply offering a change of management, especially given the large level of post-Black-Wednesday ill feeling associated with the Conservatives' ability to run the country competently isn't all that appealing. This situation isn't helped by a voting system that encourages negativity at the expense of real policy debate and demands that you focus your policies to the same few hundred thousand key voters, thus limiting scope for offering a real alternative.

The Conservatives are by no means compelled to embrace a change; new systems could well bring about new problems. But that doesn't mean that any new problems are in any way as bad or intractable as the ones they face under FPTP, and to dismiss the entire debate when it could result in both a better future for the Tories and a better future for the country as a whole is bordering on retarded.