For a party that secured almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons on one-third of the vote at the July 2024 general election, Labour seems unnaturally keen on ditching the system that showered them with such a cornucopia of psephological fruits – especially (for them) an extremely rare landslide.
Still, a significant bloc of almost 100 Labour MPs is actively campaigning for a system of proportional representation for Westminster general elections to be implemented, with a Labour commitment to that effect in their manifesto to be put to the voters the next time the country goes to the polls, probably in 2029. Some 98 Labour backbenchers are tabling an amendment to the Representation of the People bill presently before parliament, so that a commission would recommend a new voting system. Assuming Labour won the next election, or could otherwise command support for it in the Commons, this would then be implemented at the following general election.
Why now?
Burnham. Keir Starmer had no need for it by the time the last general election came around, and there’s nothing in the manifesto about it. But our newish prime minister has long favoured electoral reform, and during his shadow leadership campaign at last year’s Labour conference, he repeated his call for change and “a manifesto commitment to a system of proportional representation to be introduced into Westminster elections in the next parliament”. So the proponents of electoral reform in the Labour Party have seized their opportunity to force the pace. The 98 represent about a quarter of the parliamentary party, and a third outside the “payroll vote” who have to be noncommittal until Burnham himself gives a signal.
Isn’t it perverse for Labour to want this now?
Seems so. It is normal for minority parties or those apparently doomed never to win another election to be in favour of PR, for the obvious narrow advantage it offers them. Thus the Greens, Liberal Democrats and Reform UK are curiously united in this respect (though the Lib Dems have so perfected the art of gaming the system that they have now unilaterally achieved proportional representation for themselves – 12 per cent of the vote for 10 per cent of the seats).
When, in the 1990s, Labour thought it would never win again on its own, and needed an accommodation with the Liberal Democrats, it set up something called the Plant committee, chaired by the academic Raymond Plant. It duly recommended PR and Labour even had a manifesto commitment to “electoral reform” in the 1997 manifesto. As PM, Tony Blair in 1998 deferred the issue and asked Roy Jenkins to chair a commission, and that also recommended a form of PR. Then the whole thing was forgotten about, Labour won its second landslide in 2001, and it looked to be in power forever more. Funny, that.
Could Labour win under PR?
It’s possible, but a new system might do them no favours, because even under first past the post, neither main party has won an absolute majority of the popular vote since before the Second World War, and even then under unusual circumstances when a multi-party “national government” was in place. It’s unlikely there’d ever be a majority Labour (or Conservative) government again.
It seems that, in a reversal of the usual pattern of electoral self-interest, some Labour MPs are now driven by arguments of principle concerning the nature of parliamentary democracy. They are certainly selfless, because even more of those freshly elected in 2024 could be out of work within the next decade.
It may be, given that they experienced long periods of Tory dominance, they favour having some share in power under shifting centre-left “progressive” coalition governments over a longer time span, as opposed to absolute power for relatively short spells between a decade or two spent in futile opposition. That could be too calculating an assumption, however. They may just like PR.
What’s Burnham saying?
As ever, there’s a bit of a U-turn, isn’t there? No 10 tells us the prime minister remains committed to electoral reform in Labour’s next manifesto – but stopped short of backing the new commission. “Electoral reform”, by the way, does not necessarily equate to “proportional representation”, let alone perfectly proportional representation, ie exactly mirroring national vote shares for each party. If a minimal level of support is required to gain any representation in parliament (say 5 or 10 per cent of the vote) that will immediately distort things. The alternative vote system, which only means that any MP must command more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, counting second preferences if needs be, can actually make landslides even bigger than under first past the post. “Additional member” systems that keep the constituency element can be designed to be just a bit more proportional, or almost completely so, or somewhere inbetween (as in Scotland).
In the UK context, smaller and particular representation from the devolved nations, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also complicates the picture a bit.
Will it happen?
It would be a difficult birth if it ever went to a referendum, as precedent demands. The public usually likes the sound of “fairer” voting, and there’s a 44 to 23 per cent majority for change according to YouGov. But the only previous referendum on the matter, in 2011, rejected change to the alternative vote system by 67.9 to 32.1 per cent, on a low, 42.2 per cent turnout. (It was an early victory for a campaigner who later became even more prominent, Dominic Cummings). It feels a long way away, and it surely would be if the Tories win next time. Their taste for an “all or nothing” approach to power remains undiminished even by their recent setbacks. The last thing they want, you might think strangely, is to have to cooperate with, or serve under, Nigel Farage and the other renegade ex-Tories in Reform UK, despite sharing most of the same political prejudices. PR doesn’t always create harmony.
