We are in the final stretch of the 2024 general election. Is Labour headed for a landslide? Are the Tories headed for disaster? Prospect has invited 11 politics experts to an election group chat. Imagine a WhatsApp group of your most politically informed friends from across the ideological spectrum on-hand to discuss the biggest and smallest issues as the parties campaign for our votes. Yesterday, we asked our panellists about whether wading into culture war debates is helpful for any of the parties' vote-share. Today, we take a question on electoral reform, an issue suggested by a reader, David in Laurencekirk.
Alona Ferber: Why does the idea of proportional representation system scare Labour and the Conservatives? And is it only a matter of time before the UK moves to such a system?
Frances Ryan: Political geeks aside, I don’t think electoral reform gets many people’s pulse raising. But I do wonder whether the result of this election is going to create a flutter. With neither of the main parties inspiring devotion, and if polls are to be believed, it’s possible that a decent chunk of voters back Reform, and to a lesser extent, the Greens, but they don’t see more than a few MPs sent to the Commons.
Now, some would claim that’s a very good thing for our society and politics (and that keeping fringe or extremist elements out is a big strength of a first-past-the-post system) but being morally just isn’t the same as being democratic. Nor does it do much to help voters who are already feeling disenfranchised and that the political class doesn’t represent them.
Nadine Batchelor-Hunt: Because it gives the smaller parties a greater influence over politics if the major parties don’t get the votes they want, which has been predominantly run by either Labour or the Tories in the UK (bar a rare coalition here or there), so they’d be inviting to risk some of that autonomy. It also opens the door for extremist parties to have disproportionate influence on politics—countries like Israel are a prime example. Political extremists like Itamar Ben Gvir, Bezalel Smoritch and so on are able to have a massive sway over the actions of the government because of their constant threat of leaving the government if they don’t get what they want (which would cause it to collapse and lead to an election)—even if the majority of the country don’t hold views as far right as theirs.
I don’t think the UK will move to PR because of the reasons outlined above.
Tim Bale: Turkeys/Christmas—unless and until (as in NZ in the early 1990s) the contempt for both main parties grows so strong that demands for change become too loud to simply ignore. And even then it took a PM to misread his briefing notes and accidentally promise action in a TV interview (true story) before anything happened!
PS, I should make clear that a) I’m an NZ/UK dual national who lived in Wellington for 5 years and saw PR work up close, b) I’m a huge fan of its mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) system (the one also used in Germany), and c) it’s a mistake to assume that a change to PR (or at least MMP) would totally blow up the beneficiaries of the existing FPTP system.
Peter Kellner: Both Labour and the Conservatives have traditionally opposed proportional voting because they want outright majorities in Parliament. That means a majority of votes, or something close to it. Labour has never had a majority of votes, and the Conservatives haven’t since 1935. (We should note that Labour conferences have voted for a proportional system a number of times, but the party has never pursued it when in government.)
Another point is worth adding. When we were in the EU, the last five elections to the European parliament used the single transferable vote. Increasingly voters backed smaller parties, as the “wasted vote” argument fell away. In the final election in 2019, fewer than one in four people chose either Labour or Conservative. If we elected MPs at Westminster by this system, then three things are likely to happen within 20, perhaps 10, years: a) Labour and the Tories would have far fewer MPs than either have had at any election since the Second World War (though maybe that won’t be the case for the Tories after next week!); b) all future governments would be multi-party coalitions; c) at some point the coalition will include the Greens; at another point a far-right party.
There is no chance of any electoral reform before the next election in 2028 or 2029. Then some limited reform might come about, if Labour loses its majority and needs Lib Dem support to remain in office.
Philip Collins: There is little to no chance of a government which has just won handsomely under the old dispensation then deciding to curtail its power by offering a more proportional system. That said, I have always been in favour of reform. I think parties which command 10 per cent of the nation ought to be represented properly, whether or not I agree with them. It is up to me to argue better and defeat them. I would also concede that PR reduces the capacity of government to act emphatically but as a political liberal I regard that as a virtue of reform rather than a problem.
Peter, is it true that the Lib Dem vote, which was once very scattered and inefficient, has now become quite well targeted, which means they may win seats commensurate with their vote and thereby remove their major grievance with the existing system?
Peter Kellner: Yes, that's right. If there is to be reform, then the likeliest is the Alternative Vote (AV), keeping single-member constituencies. Few if any Labour MPs would be voting to lose their job, and the Lib Dems would be able to build on their growing targeting success. Until now LDs have said AV is no good (though they accepted it as the change option in the 2011 referendum), but I can't see Labour MPs voting for anything more radical. (Note for nerds: the 1929-31 Labour government came close to getting AV onto the statute book, but was scuppered by the 1931 economic-crisis election.)
Zoë Grünewald: I can't imagine it happening soon but I could be wrong. As Tim said, it would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. I also think right now the UK could benefit from a party with a large majority that can make assertive and potentially unpopular decisions (eg tax rises, planning reform) that will benefit the country without lots of wrangling with unruly opposition parties. This is not to say I don't support PR, I mostly do, but there are benefits to FPTP that I am hopeful a Labour government will make the most of.
Peter Hitchens: PR appeals to small parties which can’t win seats under FPTP. What its supporters among Reform voters don’t grasp is that PR also means they will never form a government on their own. PR is really a professional politicians’ system, ensuring that such professionals generally have seats and salaries, all the time, and fixing parties in existence almost forever (I believe there is still a Nasserite Party in Egypt). PR creates a wholly different form of politics because it compels post-election coalitions, rather than the pre-election coalitions we in Britain call parties.The trouble with our system, for the past 30 years, is that the two parties no longer represent the true divisions in the country (these appeared in the referendum), so parliament isn’t adversarial any more. Changes in funding and broadcasting rules could alter this over a few years, but which politicians would support them? Even so, FPTP is preferable to PR.
This conversation has been lightly edited for clarity.
Tomorrow, our panel will be back to answer yet more burning questions about the general election. Got something to ask our experts? Submit your questions!
