Every hundred years or so, MPs seek to make the Commons more democratic. In 1924, a bill tabled by Athelstan Rendall to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1918, by introducing proportional representation (PR) by the single transferrable vote (STV) was defeated by 169 votes to 157.
Rendall, the Liberal MP for Thornbury from 1906-22 and 1923-24, soon disappeared into the netherworld of Wikipedia. A century later, Liberal Democrat MP Sarah Olney introduced a Private Member’s Bill on PR. It passed, narrowly, by 138 votes to 135.
So what? Well, the thing about private members’ bills is that they die a quiet death unless they are taken up by the government. More Labour MPs (59) voted for the bill than against (50) but that’s irrelevant. In the Labour party, anything the members want (PR, rejoining the EU, etc.) is traditionally kicked into touch by the Supreme Leader.
Nevertheless, as national coordinator of Labour for a New Democracy, Joe Sousek, told Labour List, the vote on the bill sends a clear message: enough MPs are aware of the anti-democratic nature of our electoral system, and they want to change it.
Support for electoral reform within the Labour movement has surged in recent years, leading to an overwhelming endorsement of PR at the 2022 annual conference, and the adoption in 2023 of a party policy recognising that first past the post (FPTP) is both flawed and damaging to trust in politics.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group for Fair Elections (APPGFE) announced not long ago that it was already one of the largest such groups in Parliament, with 110 members, most of whom are Labour MPs. Against this backdrop, the outcome of this week’s Commons vote seems a little less shocking. Recently published analysis by the APPGFE found that a record majority of people are in favour of switching to a proportional voting system.
The Lib Dem decision to table a ten-minute rule motion implies that support for PR in the Parliamentary Labour Party was significantly underestimated. No frontbenchers, including parliamentary private secretaries, were allowed to vote, and some backbenchers who were publicly in favour of electoral reform, voted against the motion. Many more will have abstained because they didn’t want to be seen as supporting a Lib Dem bill.
Trust me, I’m a toolmaker’s son
Given the Prime Minister’s pledge to restore trust in politics, it’s notable that support for PR is highest among those who trust politics the least. Two-thirds of the public want “the flaws in the voting system” (as Labour policy puts it) addressed before the next general election, according to a new poll.
Starmer himself has declared that “the fight for trust is the battle that defines our age” and even the government has acknowledged that the flaws of FPTP voting are fuelling distrust and alienation. This challenge is too important for the government not to take the lead. It should take the first step by establishing a national commission for electoral reform, thus demonstrating that it is serious about restoring trust in politics.
As the Electoral Reform Society has pointed out in its report on the 2024 General Election, A System Out of Step, “The General Election was not only the most disproportional election in British electoral history, but one of the most disproportional seen anywhere in the world. Underneath this headline lies a story – one of a volatile electorate, fragmenting party system and an electoral system that cannot keep up.”
It added: “This was an election of records broken for all the wrong reasons. Alongside record levels of disproportionality, record lows in trust and engagement delivered a significant drop in turnout… volatility also reached a new high.”
According to the report, voters were apt to shop around, switch parties, and make their decisions later. Tactical voting remained a significant feature, with people voting for the party that had the best chance of beating the one they didn’t want, regardless of their preferred candidate. The UK’s first past the post system is not well equipped to account for this volatility, meaning it “delivers results that are not only highly disproportional but uncomfortably fragile.”
Resetting the reset
The Prime Minister is already running into trouble with his attempt to “reset” our relationship with the EU. He appears unwilling to take even the smallest step towards rescuing our economy through closer links with our main trading partners. And this despite overwhelming evidence that a majority of the electorate want precisely that. With the threat of a Trumpian takeover of the UK looming, it is all the more important to do so.
If Starmer has the decency to listen to the members of his party for once, he can achieve a significant “reset” (or rejoin, as we say in standard English). If he realises that it is a sign of strength, not weakness, to change his mind in the light of changing circumstances, there is nothing to stop him changing his mind on PR.
If he doesn’t, he is in for a nasty shock in 2029.
Number-crunchers’ corner
This is the breakdown of votes on Sarah Olney’s bill:
- In favour: 63 Lib Dem; 59 Labour; 4 Plaid Cymru; 4 Greens; 4 Independents; 3 Reform* ; 1 TUV
- Against: 78 Conservatives; 50 Labour; 4 DUP; 1 Independent; 1 UUP; 1 Reform* (the absurd Tice)
*Clacton’s part-time MP, Nigel Farage, failed to turn up for the vote.
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
