You can spin it any which way:
- The Tories have the largest number of seats but do not have a majority. That means they won.
- The Tories received the largest proportion of the popular vote (42%). That means they won (even though it is below 50% and the majority did not vote Tory)
- The Prime Minister gambled her slim majority on her personal approval ratings and the siren voices which told her that she would win a landslide - and failed. But she is staying because continuity is needed
- She ran a disastrous campaign and is morally wounded while Labour put on the largest gains and won the moral victory, so they should be in power
- The Tories are attempting to patch up a coalition of sorts with the DUP, while everyone else holds their noses at the DUP's policies. This shows 'strong leadership' and continuity in action
I guess they did not even think of the Lib Dems this time, fearing a bloody nose.
A look at the Cornwall results shows the inequity of our voting system. There are six constituencies, all of which started, and ended up, in Tory hands. The Tories received 49% of the votes (36% of the electorate) and received 100% of the seats.
Labour got 26% of the popular vote and the Lib Dems 24% (making 50% against the Tories) and received nothing: no representation, no voice, no influence. Nothing.
Is this fair, decent or honest?
People argue that 'this is how it has always been done' and this is 'the best way for a strong government' but is it really the right answer in the C20? It is good to see the LSE agreeing with us that the current system is no longer fit for purpose. Why, even David Dimbleby hinted his support during the election broadcast.
The purpose of an election is to gauge the will of the people and allow the majority view to prevail. During campaigning, the one question we were asked on the street was 'What is the tactical vote to get the Tories out?' One website suggested Labour for our constituency, another suggested the Lib Dems.
Is this really how we ought to be managing our elections in the C20: by relying on tactical voting informed by websites (which may have had agendas of their own)? Why cannot we state what we really want, at least as a starting point, and go from there?
If I want to vote Green but would be prepared to settle for Labour, or, if pushed, the Lib Dems, but absolutely not Tory, then how can I express this view? If I wanted to vote UKIP but, if pushed, would prefer the Tory candidate then how can I express this?
The two main ways of managing Proportional Representation are the Single Transferable Vote (STV) - as used in the EU and London Mayoral elections, and in many other countries; and the Party List approach.
Had we had STV then Cornwall would now be enjoying 2 Tory MPs (North and South East), 3 Labour (St Austell & Newquay, Truro & Falmouth and Camborne & Redruth) and 1 Lib Dem (St Ives). A much fairer split if marginally too generous to Labour (thanks to a close call in St Austell & Newquay).
The Party List approach would have allocated the six seats 3 Tory (North, South East and St Austell & Newquay), 2 for Labour and 1 for the Lib Dems: a very much fairer split of the views of the county.
The Party List is attractive to the large parties but is more difficult to manage and risks divorcing MPs from their constituencies and so the STV system seems much the best.
Proportional Representation has to happen, if only to avoid the disenfranchised continuing to believe (rightly) that their views are being ignored. Only vested interests keep it in place and they are not serving their real masters: the people.
Had we had STV, we would have taken Thursday's result in our stride. The Tories might well still be in power but at least they would have had to talk to others - and not just the DUP - before indulging in their wildest fantasies again. But that would prick their belief that they have a divine right to rule.
It is time we stopped believing that there are only two parties that matter and followed other countries by trying to reflect the views of everyone, not just half of them. It would certainly feel more democratic.
In case I am accused of living in La la Land, I shall deal with some of the other benefits and disadvantages in a later post.