It may seem so, after the recent ‘Cleggmania’ and the poll surge. And looking at the seats in parliament it surely looks that way, with just over 60 seats out of 650.
Look only a little deeper however and the real problem becomes clear: Labour got 8.4M votes; the LibDems got 6.6M.That doesn’t look like a major difference does it?
Put another way, Labour only needed 33k votes to get 1 seat in parliament, the Tories a very similar 35k votes for each of their seats… whereas the LibDems only got 1 seat for every 126k votes for their party. (It’s even worse for the smaller parties with the Greens getting their 1 seat from 200k votes and everyone else [outside of local parties] infinite votes i.e. no seats).
I can see why there’s unlikely to be electoral reform in this country as the two major parties are also the two biggest beneficiaries of this highly unjust system; they will accept losing seats here and there because their gains are so much bigger than these losses.
#update, also, despite losing seats, the popular vote for the LibDems has increased by 1 percent point. OK, this is not much after all the Cleggmania and all that… BUT it is an increase – and therefore incredible that they instead lose representation in parliament.