Does anyone know what we wanted?

Plenty of rubbish has been written in the aftermath of yesterday’s election and it’s my constitutional right to add to it. I’m no great expert on our political system but have been reading with interest the rantings of partisans, the wriggling of Cabinet members and the considered puzzlement of academics. Here’s my summary of an election that produced more questions than answers.

First off, who won? I've seen numerous comments from axe-grinders suggesting this was either an anti-Brown vote, or anti-Labour, or anti-Tory, depending on their particular allegiance. Strangely I've yet to see a claim it was an anti-Lib Dem vote even though they polled fewer votes than the other two main parties. Several commentators have remarked that the British people spoke clearly, they just all said different things. It seems to me (and apparently Gordon Brown) that the only reasonable interpretation is a Conservative victory.

Their failure to secure an overall majority in the House of Commons was due more to the structural imbalance in the constituency map than a lack of support. In 2005 Labour secured 35.2% of the vote and 356 seats; this time the Tories have about 36% but only 306 seats. And Labour's share of the vote is lower now than the Conservatives' last time yet they have 50 more seats. Does the failure to secure 50% backing from the populace undermine the Tories' right to form a government? I don't see why it should. The last time a party polled over 50% was 1935, and that was for a national unity block during the Great Depression. In a first-past-the-post system there's no requirement for an overall majority. After all, no one is claiming a candidate should be elected as an MP only if he has more than half the vote in his constituency. Let's be consistent. Whoever gets the most votes, becomes an MP; whichever party has most votes and most seats, should attempt to govern. Amid much political posturing it's not impossible that Gordon Brown's concession on this point is tactical, expecting Cameron to be unable to form a coalition with Clegg in order that he gets a legitimised free run at it. There are too many ironies to list about the position in which the Lib Dems find themselves.

Turnout was up, at 65% approx, which means one-third of the electorate still didn't cast a vote. It's a shame we have no way of telling the distribution between those unable to vote, the apathetic and the disaffected. I don't believe those who couldn't be bothered, have any right to complain at the outcome of the election or indeed the way the country is run. As for the disaffected, perhaps we should have a "None of the above" option on the ballot papers, but I don't have a huge amount of sympathy for anyone not willing to choose the least bad option or as a last resort, stand for election themselves.

Electoral reform may follow shortly. That could mean proportional representation, or something else. There are other voting systems available, most of which are used somewhere and all of which have flaws. Maybe we could hold a referendum on which voting system to adopt. But how would we determine which voting system to use for the referendum - another referendum?

Pretty much any voting system can potentially lead to a hung parliament, with consequent manoeuvring and internal rifts as party activists disagree where compromises should be made and which potential partners are suitable. I'm not absolutely convinced that on balance first past the post is much worse than some of the suggested alternatives.

Whatever reforms are made to the electoral system, we must resolve the West Lothian question. This election has brought a new twist to the old chestnut, in that the Conservatives have a majority of seats in England but are denied an overall parliamentary majority by Labour's 49 MPs in Scotland. The Scots will claim they could be governed by a party with no mandate: just one MP and 17% of the vote north of the border. A delicious irony is that the Tories have fiercely resisted separatist moves by the SNP, insisting that the United Kingdom should remain so in more than name. It seems to me that any electoral reform should embrace the concept that each of the four countries in the Union should have its own representatives and that where power is devolved to Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, MPs from those countries should not be allowed to vote on matters that affect only England. Apart from being obviously the right thing to do, it would also sideline Mssrs Brown, Darling and Alexander in Westminster. But I can't see it happening. It's too sensible for one thing - and would reopen the devolution/independence debate at a time when Britain has other problems to deal with.

Finally, a few words on those who found themselves queuing outside when the polling stations closed. It was unfortunate and clearly there are flaws in the organisation of the poll in certain places - albeit none was a marginal constituency. But, these people had 15 hours to vote. How long did they want? With the EU Working Time Directive they can't all have been at work all day. Not a single person I saw interviewed seemed to consider the possibility that they should have gone at 9am or early afternoon; far easier to blame someone else. It was almost reassuring to see that even in this potentially revolutionary day, the modern British tenet prevailed: It's not my fault, someone else is to blame. 

P.S. Paul Clark, the transport minister who voted against his constituents' specific interests, was trounced on Thursday. And the BNP candidate lost his deposit here in Gillingham. Whatever mixed messages the electorate sent to the main parties, they were absolutely clear on these scumbags: you're talking rubbish and we don't want to hear it.