Elections: First Past the Post

On a housekeeping matter, I should say that it is terribly hot in Parliament today, so Members and officials are very welcome to remove their jackets.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the use of first-past-the-post in general and local elections. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to be in an environment with such great air conditioning. “I am committed to proportional representation…I think it would change the political culture. I don’t see how first past the post and the point-scoring inherent within it lifts Britain out of the doom loop it is in.” Those words could have been spoken by any Liberal Democrat Member, in this Chamber or beyond, but they were not: it is a direct quote from the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), who is believed to be the Prime Minister-elect. The quote not only highlights the need for proportional representation but underscores the limitations of first past the post, which the new right hon. Member for Makerfield identifies as causing political instability. The Liberal Democrats and the Liberal party before us have called for fair votes for a century, and I am delighted that the advocacy for change has a new voice in Parliament in the newly elected right hon. Member for Makerfield. The view should not be controversial among his colleagues, either: more than two thirds of the Labour party membership have voted in favour of adopting a system of proportional representation for UK elections. I look forward immensely to prospective new leadership in the Labour party representing the views of its members and finally ensuring fair votes for all. Of course, support for change is not confined to the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats, but shared across the House. In December 2024, my ten-minute rule Bill sought to introduce a system of proportional representation for parliamentary and local government elections. It passed in the main Chamber with cross-party support, including from 59 Labour MPs. It was a historic moment in the House, as it was the first time that the Commons had voted in favour of reforming our electoral system to bring in a fairer and more representative process. However, my Bill spent a year and a half awaiting its Second Reading before ultimately falling, because the Government failed to make time for it in the previous parliamentary Session. Concerns are often raised to me that a change of electoral system will benefit Reform UK and other right-wing parties. Ironically, of the four Reform MPs who voted on my Bill, one voted against change while Reform’s leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), abstained. In an era of multi-party politics, many parties are likely to benefit from a more proportional system. However, the Liberal Democrats are perhaps perfectly placed to neutrally make an argument in favour of the principles of proportional representation, as we received an almost exact proportion of votes to seats at the last general election. At last month’s local elections, the Liberal Democrats won every single seat on my local Richmond upon Thames council, but we won only 51.5% of the vote share. While the councillors will take every step possible to ensure that all residents are represented, the voting system produced results that disregarded 48.5% of voters in the borough. To repeat: the Liberal Democrats want electoral change on principle. To address the increasing lack of public trust in politics, it is essential that the electorate know that their voices matter equally, wherever they are in the country. First past the post has not been fit for purpose for decades, but it has perhaps never been more outdated than it is now. The growth of the multi-party system in our politics means that some constituency seats are being seriously contested by five, six or even seven different parties. A system that encourages competition from just two parties leads only to tactical voting: more than ever before, people are voting against a party that they do not want to win rather than for their first preference. With a fairer electoral system and more democratic institutions, politicians and parties will have to be more focused on the things that really matter to people. We will have better public services and a fairer society as a result, and people will feel more engaged with politics if they feel that their voices are being heard and represented. One of the leading arguments in favour of first past the post used to be that it produced stable Governments—I think that argument has fallen by the wayside. I could poke fun at former Conservative Governments, or even the current Labour Government, but it is important to highlight that the first-past-the-post system has proven to contribute to instability. This Government won 411 seats at the last general election with just 33.7% of the vote. The consequence of that has been clear: two thirds of people did not vote for a Labour Government, and, although the Government have made decisions that have not helped them, public opinion was against them from the start. It is obvious that our electoral system needs to change. The man we believe will be Prime Minister is in favour of proportional representation and the Labour party is in favour of proportional representation. The House voted in favour of my Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, and the last decade of governance has done nothing to convince me or the general public that first past the post produces stable governance. Our politics is not fit for purpose, and reform can begin with changing how we elect Members of Parliament to ensure that UK residents’ views are fairly represented in this place. I understand that the Minister cannot commit to changing our electoral system, but I ask her whether that could be considered by a future Labour Government, or even the one set to continue under new leadership.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and congratulate the Richmond Liberal Democrats on their universal victory in last month’s Richmond upon Thames council elections. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group for fair elections. Increasing political participation in a democracy is not just a nice thing to have; it is an imperative that all of us must focus on in the service of our constituents. In the years to come, I genuinely believe that it will be the difference between a politics that serves and engages all and one that continues to obscure decision making from communities, fuels rather than addresses discontent, and pushes reasonable people in the United Kingdom to lose faith in democracy and seek increasingly radical solutions. Progress has been made to increase structural participation, with the Government bringing forward votes at 16 in the Representation of the People Bill, finally aligning the voter age in general elections to that of Scottish local and devolved elections. Among other measures, the Government are taking steps in the Bill to strengthen our democracy. However, I believe that there is an omission in it: an acknowledgement that serious questions are now being asked about how we elect people to this place. Look at the general election results: turnout is decreasing. I may have won my mandate to this place by trebling my vote share in Falkirk, but that was possible only because my second-place opponent halved their vote share. The diminishing threshold for electing MPs and Governments demands a more pluralistic politics, or at least one that gives a greater number of people something to vote for instead of against. First past the post structurally embeds negative political campaigning into how we participate in democracy; it enables parties, the media and the public to crystallise in our subconscious pretty early on that only two people have the chance to be the victor in a majority of seats in the country.

Like my hon. Friend, I have constituents who use proportional representation to elect people to local government or the Scottish Parliament. Does he agree that we have to learn lessons from both the positive and the negative elements in those electoral systems?

I completely agree that there is a wider point about the culture of politics, especially in how we should drive everybody in this place and local government to work together collaboratively, rather than pursuing the most populist option or blaming every problem on previous Governments. That has to be broader than simply reforming how we elect people to places, but I believe—I will bear this out later in my speech—that that is an essential first step. In preparing this speech, I recalled bemused family members handing me SNP leaflet after SNP leaflet, desperately shoved through their letterbox, that warned them to vote SNP to avoid electing a Tory MP. I believe that even the most optimistic Scottish Conservative in Falkirk would have found that a pretty remote possibility in 2024, or at any other time. But when normal people who do not spend all their time obsessing about politics read that, it tends to turn them off a wee bit. If we spend our entire time campaigning in general elections against a proposition and defining ourselves against a particular political party or perspective, we fail to lead our campaigns with our solutions to the problems the public face and want us to address. We diminish the opportunity for genuine scrutiny of our propositions, out of fear that the party or person we are running against will use it against us. It tends to encourage us to hide from debate, to reduce the utility and quality of public discussion and to disengage those people do not vote in our elections from that discussion. It is irrelevant how those of us with the privilege of sitting here as Members of Parliament may personally view the politics of certain political parties; when they are voted for by millions of people and they see only a sliver of representation in Parliament, it closes people off from this place, and it feeds into toxic populist narratives that can be weaponised by those parties against those of us who sit as MPs. They are able to pit us as for the system and pit those excluded from it as outside of the system. It also allows them to avoid a proportionate level of scrutiny that reflects the amount of support they have in the country. A system that enables voters to see their views, and the views of those with similar political allegiances, proportionately reflected in this place will go a long way to addressing many of those issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee) touched on the more pluralistic electoral system used in local elections in Scotland and how it works to reflect views more broadly. Councillors of different political parties are often elected to serve the same people. Although that should culturally compel people to work together more effectively in communities, that is still a political challenge that we must address in tandem while we seek to replace the first-past-the-post system. Populist opposition for opposition’s sake is still rife. The relentless assignation of a problem’s cause to a sole person or political party in a particular office at a particular time creates a reductive and inadequate political debate that would be better spent evaluating multiple proposed solutions to the problems that people rely on democratic structures to resolve—especially because, out there in the real world, there is a substantially greater consensus on what problems we face as a country than would be suggested by the tone of conversation in this place, in council chambers and in devolved assemblies when they are evaluating the solutions. Whether the debate is on immigration, taxation or the defence of the realm in the House of Commons, or schools, bins or housing in Falkirk council chamber, a proportional system gives us a better chance to compel political parties to use their privileged elected positions to put forward competing solutions consistently. Our desire to strengthen democracy should lead us to create a crucible that enables multiple proposals to compete and for us to come to the best resolution. Our constituents would be better served by a voting system that empowers us all to do better than lazily harass from the sidelines those who happen to be in a particular office at any particular time. A cultural change is clearly needed, which cannot be achieved by simply replacing the electoral system, but replacing first past the post is an essential step. However, and this could be a point of contention, if we are to replace first past the post, we have to acknowledge that there is not currently an elected mandate to do so. There is also no consensus on which system should replace it, but we can see in the country that the current system is no longer commanding adequate participation to sustain a healthy democracy. That is why I and the members of the all-party parliamentary group support a national commission on electoral reform to be set up by the Government. I encourage the Minister to put that in the Representation of the People Bill when it returns to the House.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing this important debate and the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for setting out so clearly that this is not an issue that sits on party lines. It is about the fundamental quality of our democracy and the fundamental question: are voters being adequately represented by our system? It is clear that the first-past-the-post system is broken. We have a problem with political trust in this country, and the voting system is part of that. Why is first past the post broken? It is clearly fundamentally unfair. In general elections, it has generated a two-thirds majority on just one third of the vote; in some local elections, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park set out, it can generate a 100% majority on just half of the vote. That clearly leaves far too many voters unrepresented, in the sense that their voices are not heard by the people who are elected to hold power and who have influence. That is something we can and must fix, because what principle could be more basic in a democracy than the principle that everybody’s vote counts equally? If we believe in that fundamental principle, we have to recognise the urgency of moving to proportional representation.