That the British constituencies should be reformed is something proposed by the Tories, opposed by Labour. The argument in favour of it is this:
But, as you say, the point still stands. Accurate figures are:
– 2005, Labour, 35.2%, 355 seats, reasonably comfortable majority;
– 2010, Conservatives, 36.1%, 306 seats, needed a coalition.
Even looking at the second place:
– 2005, Conservatives 2nd, 32.4%, 198 seats
– 2010, Labour 2nd, 29%, 258 seats – again, lower percentage, more seats.
Whether a minority of the votes should give a majority in Parliament is one thing, but it is quite another matter for widespread uncorrected differences in the number of voters between constituencies to mean that one party will get significantly more seats than the other party, to the extent of having a majority or not, on the same percentage of the vote.
Any argument against boundary reform has to be able to tell us why the system, as it is, should lead to that unfair result.
And that the bastard Tories lose isn’t a good enough one. Unfortunately, none I’ve seen so far manage to go any further than that. So, reform it is then, yes?