There is only one way to save the Tory party: electoral reform

Conservatives must face up to the fact that their prospects of forming a majority government have evaporated

On Monday night, a young Tory colleague of mine was in the "long" short list for the target seat of North Norfolk, which the Liberal Democrats snatched at the 2001 election with a wafer-thin majority of 400. When he failed to reach the final round, he could not understand why I congratulated him. On the basis of yesterday's ICM poll, the chance of the Tories retaking this seat is slim.

The Baghdad bounce, which was supposed to be the saviour for Labour, has been replaced by the Brent East blip for the Liberal Democrats. Yesterday's ICM poll records the Tories, at 30 per cent, a mere two percentage points ahead of the Lib Dems, on 28 per cent. It is difficult to know whether this is a temporary blip, following the by-election, but it is clear that this will have a galvanising effect on Lib Dem morale both in marginal constituencies that they are defending, as well as those in which they are the principal challengers.

The mood inside the Tory party can only be - if they are awake to the implications of recent events - one of utter despair. In order to gain an overall majority of one seat in the next Parliament it is necessary for them to register a 42 per cent share of the vote. The scale of the anti-Tory bias that has developed in our electoral system over the last two decades is underlined by the fact that, in 1983, when they secured their second term with a 140-plus seat margin, their share of the vote was even less than this. Labour, by contrast, under the present system can secure an overall majority by securing a mere 35 per cent share of the vote (exactly their latest poll rating). This means that the Tories have to secure an 11 per cent lead to achieve an overall majority while Labour could still remain the largest party if they are up to 8 per cent behind the Tories.

Even if we strip away the froth associated with the immediate aftermath of Brent East, the more voters believe that there is a serious possibility that Lib Dems can win in constituencies previously considered beyond their range, the more tempted voters may be to rally to the bandwagon. This inhibits the already limited market for the Tories - even assuming they were making advances in the polls - to achieve the 325 seats needed to form a majority government. The chances are that most of the 30-odd seats the Lib Dems won from the Tories in 1997 - and held in 2001 - are destined to remain securely in Lib Dem hands next time.

Much of the media debate at Brighton has centred on the question of whether the Lib Dems should now appeal to Labour's left flank or whether this risks alienating former Tory voters who have provided most of the engine power for their advance since 1997. But for many Lib Dems - and, more crucially, for a growing number of the new generations of voters unfamiliar with the Cold War battles of east and west or capitalism versus socialism - the terms "left" and "right" are seen as outdated.

At The Independent's fringe meeting, most of the audience could not understand our obsession with these concepts. They are on to something. One questioner described the utter bemusement of most young people, who follow politics (if at all) only at general elections, at such concepts. Baroness Williams of Crosby made it clear that the political divide was more between internationalism and xenophobic nationalism, between authoritarianism and social justice, and between centralism and decentralisation.

This is what makes it so easy to rebut the Tory charge that it is not possible for the Lib Dems to represent both Brent East as well as Newbury or Winchester. The implication of this will come back to haunt Iain Duncan Smith - a point so vividly illustrated yesterday by the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, Matthew Taylor: "He has said that there are two nations. One leafy, one deprived. He has said that the people of Newbury and the people of Brent can't want the same things."

Voters are plainly concerned about decent public services, the environment and transport wherever they live. The irritation at Mr Duncan Smith's comment is compounded by the fact that, only a week ago, he was rightly making the point that the Tories should have something to offer the deprived communities in Labour's heartlands. He has made much of his visits to Easterhouse in Glasgow. But what is it all about if there is not at least the aspiration to seek to represent every part of the country - rich or poor, rural or urban? On the basis of Mr Duncan Smith's analysis that "Brent East is not our territory", we can rule out huge swaths of inner-city Britain (or constituencies such as Scunthorpe, which I once represented in the Tory interest), where there will be no realistic attempts to make progress.

The truth has to be faced, however unpalatable, that the prospect of the Tories forming a majority government next time - or any time in the medium term - is remote. Of all the political parties that should be secretly eyeing up alternatives to the vagaries of the present system, it should be the Tories. It was nearly 30 years ago when, among others, Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten considered the possibility that the Tories might need to give consideration to proportional representation. That was in the days when it was felt that the total number of "other" political parties - Liberals, Nationalists and Unionists - could prevent the formation of a Tory government with an overall majority on the first-past-the-post system.

If the Liberal Democrats extend their advance next time with a further quantum leap to, say, 80 seats - even with the Tories (optimistically) taking back a number of Labour marginals - then we are dangerously near to Labour losing its overall majority. Senior Lib Dem number crunchers consider this to be at the low end of expectations, and believe that if, during a real general election campaign the current polls are replicated, they are in serious contention, not only to win the 15 Tory seats where they are already within 10 per cent of victory, but could also pick up a further 29, from both major parties, where they are already in second place and between 10 and 20 per cent of the current incumbents.

It is not impossible to imagine a hung Parliament, if not at the next general election, certainly at the subsequent one - probably before the end of this decade. Perhaps, as Tories lament the passing over the weekend of their party's historian, Lord Blake, they might reflect on his contribution to the politics of electoral reform when he chaired the Hansard Committee's report on electoral reform in 1975, subsequently becoming president of the Electoral Reform Society between 1986 until 1993.

Mr Duncan Smith would of course have long departed as Tory leader, should there ever be any negotiations with the Lib Dems about a common programme for government. But Tories must face up to the fact that their prospects of forming a majority government have evaporated. Only proportional representation can save them. If they are ever to participate in government again, they might, ironically, be doing it with the Liberal Democrats.

mrbrown@pimlico.freeserve.co.uk